Expert: Marco - 5/6/2004

Question
Do Catholics practice the date of a person starts on the day you were concieved. Have you evwer heard of any catholic practicing this?

In other words if you were born on January 1, 2003, you would be recognized as being 2 years old instead of 1.  

Answer
Dear John,

I can assure you that all catholics I know count the age starting from the birth date.

Yours in Christ,

Marco.

PS I would like to give a scientific discussion about the existence of God and some recent miracles.

I think that faith cannot come only from logic, because to have faith in God means to trust and love God.
I think however that logics and science prove the existence of our soul and the existence of  God and that there are many rational arguments which strongly supports the christian faith.
I am a physicist and I will explain  how science and logic prove that the our psychical life is intrinsically transcendent with respect to material reality, which implies the existence of the soul (or spirit) as a supernatural component of man.
I think in fact that the more direct way to find the certainty of the existence of God is to try to understand our psychical life, that is our capacity to feel emotions, sensations, thoughts, self-awareness, etc.
We know that our brain is made only of particles such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagneic fields; every biological process is due only to chemical reactions, and in their turn, every chemical reaction is due only to the electromagnetic interaction among valence electrons.
Every materialistic attempt to explain our psychical life implies that what thinks, loves, suffers, desires ets. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields.

The point is that objects can feel nothing at all ; objects cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger,self-awareness, etc.   
Science has proved that the equations of the electromagnetic field are universal; they describe the electromagnetic field within our brain as well as within a copper wire or an atom.
There is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the equations of physics. These equations do not explain the existence of consciousness and our capacity to feel. If one hypothesizes that the electromagnetic fields are responsible of our sensations, emotions and thoughts, the only logical conclusion would be that also our television, our washing machine, etc. sometimes would be happy or depressed. In fact, from a scientific point of view there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields present in our brain and the ones present in those objects.

The claim that the electric impulses in our brain are or generate sensations and thoughts, is in contradiction with the laws of physics that consider equivalent all electric impulses, inside or outside our brain. In fact, an electric impulse is formed only by some electrons moving in a certain direction; according to the laws of physics, electrons are all equal and indistinguishable, and they are always moving in every material or electric circuits. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with one of the fundamental principle of physics, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, that establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.

Besides, the laws of physics establish that electric impulses generate only electromagnetic fields; so the materialistic hypothesis that the electric impulses in the brain generate sensations, emotions and thoughts is in striking contradiction with the laws of physics. The electromagnetic waves generated by the electric impulses in our brain are absolutely equivalent to the ones generated by any other electric impulses; such waves go out of our brain and travel in the external space at the velocity of light, as every electromagnetic wave.
From a physical point of view our brain is only an object, and therefore it can have no psychical life; our psychical life represents a violation of the laws of physics. Every phenomenon which represents a violation of the laws of physics is considered a supernatural phenomenon ; therefore our psychical life is a supernatural phenomenon.
Materialists think that the electromagnetic field is the origin of our consciousness, feelings, emotions, etc., but they cannot explain why the same fields do not make our electric objects have similar consciousness, feelings, etc. ; their position is in striking contradiction with our scientific knowledges which prove that there is no difference between the electric fields inside our brain and the ones outside our brain.
If one supposes that the electric impulses in our brain were the origin of consciousness and emotions, the only possible logical consequence would be that every electric object has a psychical life and FEELS emotions, feelings, etc.

The properties of every molecule  (including DNA molecules)  and every biological process can be obtained directly from the laws of physics.
On the contrary consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. cannot be obtained from the laws of physics; this is a further proof of the transcendent nature of  consciousness with respect to the material reality.
Our psychical life is intrinsically  transcendent with respect to the material reality, because it cannot be originated by objects (such as electrons or electromagnetic fields) ; our psychical life is then intrinsically supernatural.

Since our psychical life cannot be originated by objects such as electrons and electromagnetic fields, it means that our psyche (or mind, or spirit, or whatever you prefer) and our brain are two different interacting entities, and not the same entity. The psyche is the  non-physical component of man.
Where did our psyche come from?  How did our psychical life begin? Science proves that our psyche cannot have a physical or biological origin, which proves that  the only answer is God.
In fact,  I know that I exist,  that I have not always existed and that I have not come into existence by myself;
these certainties are very evident by themselves and need not be proved.
I can then define God as the Creator of my psyche, He Who has made me exist as a psychical being, He Who has give origin to my psychical life.
In other words, my reasoning can be summarized as follows:
I FEEL my existence, therefore I exist as a psychical being (that is as a spirit).
I exist, therefore God exists and He is the Creator of my own existence.

The certainty of the existence of God is as evident as the certainty that I exist.
I think that the existence of God is very evident by itself; the reason why atheists do not believe in God's existence is that they are so much terrorized by the idea of Hell that  they deny every evidence.
It is not God Who hides from man but it is man who often hides from God.
This is explained also in the Bible; in fact, after committing sin Adam and Eve try to hide from God.
I think that the truth is what can prove to be true by itself and is stronger than any doubt.
The existence of God  is for me evident by itself and stronger than any doubt.
I think that to have faith means that a certainty exists inside us and that this certainty is not
deduced by anything else, because it is evident by itself and is intrinsically stronger than any doubt.
Faith is then the absolute certainty, in contrapposition to the relative certainties which can be obtained through an ordinary logical proof.
In fact, every logical proof requires at least an hypotesis, and therefore our conclusions depend on our hypothesis.
We cannot prove our hypotesis without another hypotesis. And so on.
It follows that logic cannot be used to find an absolute truth, but it can give us only relative certainties (relative with respect to our hypotesis).
If you seek an absolute truth you cannot rely only on logic ;
the fact that objects such as electrons, electromagnetic fields, computers, etc. cannot have a psychical life, that is they cannot feel happiness, sadness, love, anger, etc. is an absolute truth ; this fact does not need to be proved because it is intrinsically obvious and evident by itself.
The only possible materialist explanation of consciousness and emotions implies that objects such as electrons and electromagnetic fields have emotions, feelings, awareness, etc. This is in striking contradiction with logic (objects can feel nohing at all) and with our scientific knowledges, which prove that there is no difference between the electromagnetic fields inside and outside our brain. Materialism is only a modern kind of idolatry: in fact the idolatrous thinks that the object (idol) under certain circumstances has a psychical life, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material; this is exactly what the materialist thinks, because he thinks that the object (brain) has a psychical life under certain circumstances, regardless of the fact that it is made with ordinary material (electrons, electromanetic fields, etc.)

The fact that drugs can alter consciousness and mental capacities simply proves that an interaction between brain and psyche exists. By no means this can be considered a proof that the brain is the origin of consciousness and emotions. If you have a problem in your eyes, your visual capacities would be altered, but this does not prove that it is your eye which has the visual sensation; this simply proves that your eye is involved in the process of generation of the visual sensation. In the same way the studies on drug effects only prove  an interaction between psycheand brain exist. The existence of this interaction is obvious; in fact, without this interaction, our psychewould be completely isolated from the external reality. The chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness etc; it is the our psyche who “translate” these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc. Since the psyche is a supernatural entity, also the interaction brain-psyche has a supernatural nature, and it cannot be explained by science.
Observe that the same mental alterations produced by drugs can be obtained through hypnosis; in the process of hypnosis there is no physical interation between the hypnotist and the brain of the hypnotized, which proves that the process of hypnosis has not a physical origin, but a psychical origin. The fact the the same alterations of consciousness can be obtained through hypnosis is a further proof that brain and psycheare not the same entity, but two different interacting entities.

It must be stressed that the physical stimulus and the sensation we feel are two completely different phenomena. For example, the vibrations of the molecules of the air is not the sensation "sound" we feel; the molecules of the air hear nothing, and it would be absurd to say that the molecules of the air are a auditory sensation. The sensation "sound" exist only in the psychical reality, and not in the physical reality; the auditory sensation is generated only by the psyche and is the psychical elaboration of a physical stimulus. In the same way, the chemical reactions and the electric impulses which occur in our brain are not emotions, feelings, awareness; they are only physical stimuli. It is the our psyche who elaborates and translates these ordinary physical processes into emotions, feelings, etc.

Now I would like to give some considerations about the reliability of our scientific knowledges. First of all I would like to explain the difference between a phenomenological theory and a first-principletheory. A phenomenological theory is only an approximated and simplified version of a first-principletheory, that represents the exact explanation of natural phenomena. Biology and neurology are examples of phenomenological theories, while physics is the only first-principle theory, from which all the other natural sciences derive. Of course, since first principle calculations are very lengthy and arduous, we need also simplified theories in order to treat more easily systems formed by many atoms.
The laws of physics have a general validity, but in their application to specific systems, it is possible to use simpler rules, specific for that kind of system; these rules are neither extraneous, nor independent from the laws of physics, but they are a direct consequence of the law of physics. A result of these phenomenological theories cannot be accepted if it results to be in contradiction with the laws of physics, which are the only true principleat the origin of the phenomenological theory. Only the laws of physics represent the first-principle explanation of the material reality, both inorganic and organic matter. Obviously, an approximated theory (such as biology and neurology) cannot be used to deny the exact theory from which the approximated theory derives.

All natural sciences are then subordinate to physics. We can also point out that all natural sciences (biology, neurology, etc.) use in their studies and in their microscopic analysis only instruments that have been designed uniquely on the basis of the laws of physics. The data studied and analysed by these natural sciences have sense only because the laws of physics assure the correct working of their instruments. If the laws of physics are questioned, all other natural sciences would immediately fall down to pieces, because all the microscopic data used by these sciences to support their theories, would lose any meaning. Therefore , no natural sciences can elaborate theories in contradiction with the laws of physics. This would mean to make all data to lose sense, data on which the phenomenological theories have been built; it is an obvious logical contradiction. The laws of physics are then the foundations of all natural sciences.

The laws generating all chemical, biological, neurological processes are now perfectly known. Never before in history, science has been able to explain the principleby which all biological processes are originated. This represents a true turn in history. All that physics will discover in the future will have nothing to do with the biological processes in our organism, or any other organism. Even if there are still some things not perfectly known in astrophysics, these astrophysical process do not affect biological processes, which are due uniquely to the laws of quantum electrodynamics. There is then no reason to question the validity of the laws of physics in the explanation of biological or neurological processes.

The laws of physics consists of a system of mathematical equations. Their mathematical structure exclude the possibility that these equations can be modified; in fact, even a slight change in a mathematical equation would generates radical changes in all its solutions. We have already found billions and billions of correct solutions from the laws of physics ; if we changed them, we would suddenly cast away all these correct solutions. On the other hand, every day we find a systematic experimental confirmation of the laws of physics on ever new systems. To hypothesize that the laws of physics are wrong would be equivalent to say that all these billions and billions of of systematic and quantitative experimental confirmations are only a lucky coincidence. In these last decades, we have done many more experiments than in all history, but the laws of quantum electrodynamics, discovered in the beginning of last century, have never been changed. On the basis of the number of experimental tests, we can say that quantum electrodynamics is the oldest scientific theory in history.

Today we are able to do first-principle calculations for molecular systems formed by many atoms; this means that we can calculate the solutions of the equations of quantum physics also for macroscopic systems. The point is that we already know what KIND of information we can get from a first-principle calculation for every possible molecular system. In fact from the solution of the Schroedinger equation for a molecular system we know that we can obtain informations such as charge distributions or energy spectra. By no means we can obtain consciousness, emotions, feelings, etc. These are not possible outputs of a first-principle calculation. Even if we had a supercomputer with the capacity to find the wave function for our brain, we could find from the wave function only properties such as charge density or energy spectra. We could not find consciousness from the wave function calculated with the super computer. In fact we already know what KIND of properties can be obtained from every possible wave function. We are already able to do first-principle calculations for many different molecular systems, but the kind of properties we can find from their wave functions does not depend on which molecular system we have studied, because they are general outputs of every first-principle calculation, and it is independent from the kind of atoms or the number of atoms of the system. If the psyche did not exist as a non-physical component of man, according to our scientific knowledges we should be only a sort of biological robots, without any consciousness and without feeling anything, which actions and reactions were due only to chemical reactions . All the neurological studies prove only the existence of an interaction between psyche and brain, but they reveal nothing about the nature of the psyche.

At this point, it is important to observe that it is possible to simulate with a computer every feature of the behavior of animals, including their capacity to learn and their apparent capacity to recognize their image in a mirror. An adequate software can allow the computer to record input data, analyze them and give specific outputs; all these operations occur automatically, with no consciousness. For example a computer, connected to a camera, can analyse the external images; this occur automatically through some mathematical algorithms, and the computer has no visual sensations. This proves that the fact that a can can distinguish a bone from a stick, does not imply that the dog has a visual sensation.

Therefore it is not possible to exclude from a scientific and rational point of view, that the life of animals is only a purely biological/chemical process without any kind of consciousness (neither sensations or emotions). In other words, science cannot exclude the possibility that the animal is only a biological robot, feeling nothing at all, which actions and reactions are uniquely determined by a chemical software implanted in its brain. It is also possible to explain those behaviors of animals, that are usually considered as an indication of emotions. For example, the dogs that because of genetic mutations presented some affectionate behaviors, had a greater probability to be adopted by man, and consequently, to survive. It was sufficient that the animal presented those behaviors also towards only a member of the family (even not the one who gave it food) to be accepted by the family. It would be only a case of natural selection, even if unawares induced by man, that has programmed the behavior and the reactions of the dog. Since we have no way to observe directly the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, and the hypothesis of existence of consciousness in animals is not necessary to explain the observable phenomena in animals, we can conclude that there is no experimental or scientific evidence of the existence of any kind of consciousness in animals, neither sensations or emotions.
The idea that animals have sensations and emotions is then only an arbitrary hypothesis, without any scientific or rational foundations..


Let me then briefly discuss the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution is based on the recovery of fossils, therefore this theory can at the most conclude that our biological organism is the result of the evolution of a previous biological organism.
The point is that what really distinguishes us from animals is our psychical life, which has no biological origin, but a supernatural origin ; our biological organism is certainly not much different from the one of other animals.
Since it is not possible to find fossils of psyche, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the way we have become conscious and intelligent persons.
Even if our organism  derived from a previous animal organism, only the divine intervention could have given this organism the human mind.
So God could have created the whole universe through the laws of physics and our organism could be the result of an evolutional process ; however our organism would have been only another animal organism if God would have not given us our psyche, changing a pure animal organism into a human person.

In conclusion, today we know the laws which generate all chemical, biological and neurological processes; in fact, the laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the description of molecular systems, and in particular of biological systems. Science proves that electrons are all identical and indistinguishable. The laws of quantum mechanics are universal and determine every chemical reaction and every molecular process, both in organic and inorganic systems. The electromagnetic fields are determined by the same universal equations , both in our brain and in any other inorganic system.

The laws of physics allow to explain, a least in principle, all physical, chemical, biological, neurological and cerebral processes. However, in the laws of physics there is no explanations and no justifications of the existence of consciousness, neither of the most common sensation. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, which proves that consciousness is due to a supernatural component, the psyche or soul, that is a non-physical entity, transcendent to the laws of physics and to the material reality.

The psyche cannot then be identified with the brain, which is only a physical object, formed by electrons, protons and neutrons, which processes are determined uniquely by the laws of quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, consciousness and our psychical life cannot have a biological origin. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical, biological and neurological process; the psychical reality, which transcends the laws of physics.

At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the material reality.
We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent to the physical reality. This represents a scientific confirmation of the existence of a transcendent God, the Creator of our soul.

My reasoning “I exists, therefore God exists” simply proves that atheism as well agnosticism are  false,  illogical and in striking contraddiction with our scientific knowledges.
Once you reach the certainty that God exists, you must try to understand Who God is and why God made us exist.
The fact that God is the Creator of our mind, implies a very close relation between God and us and it is a further evidence of how much God deeply knows us and loves us.
The fact that God is the Creator of our mind allows us to understand through logics some attributes of God.
God is infinitely superior to us and more powerful than us because He has the power to create us, while we do not have the power to create anything and we need be created by Him in order to exist. This proves that an immense abyss of superiority separates God from us.
Since God is the Creator of our intelligence,  our consciousness, our capacity to love, to have a will, to rejoice, to have a psychical life,   He must be infinitely more intelligent than us and He must have a will and a capacity to love and to have a psychical life infinitely superior to ours.  
Since God is the Creator of our (psychical) person, He must be Person.
Since He is the Creator of us , He existed before us, and He exists independently from us.
Since God is the Creator of our mind, He has the power to create counscious existence, therefore God owns in Himself conscious existence ; so God is He who exists consciously in Himself.
The biblical name of God is YHWH, which means “I am who I am”. ; the meaning of “I am” is conscious existence, because only a person who exists and is conscious of his own existence can say “I am”.
I believe that  God is love, and that creation  is an act of love.  
I firmly believe that God made me exists because he loves me and He wants me to share the full happiness of His eternal life.
The certainty that God loves me is based on Jesus' word and on His sufferings and death;
I know that there is nothing more than this that  God could do in order to prove to me that He loves me.
Since God loves us,  He certainly manifested Himself to men.
The Bible is the most ancient monotheistic book, and is then from the logical point of view the only possible candidate ; A loving God would never have abandoned humanity during the first part of history.
Besides and most importantly, no religion in the world contains an immense act of love as the one of the christian faith: God makes Himself a man, and accepts an atrocious suffering and death in order to save us. For a person who believes that God is love, the christian faith is the only possible logical answer.
Human life is based on two complemetary aspects: logic and love, that is the capacity of reasoning and the capacity to have feelings.
Logic cannot give by itself a meaning to human life; logic cannot fill our life with happiness as only love does.
The catholic faith is the perfect synthesis of love and logic.

There are also rational arguments from history which supports the christian faith.
Jesus did several powerful miracles to prove that He was the Son of God.
He gave also the power to the apostoles to do powerful miracles.
Even if we cannot see these miracles I think that it is possible to prove through logics
that these miracles really happened.
First of all, Jesus was killed by the pharisees because many jews believed that He was the Messiah.
The Jews believed in powerfull miracles, and they expected that the Messiah
would have been greater than Moses and all the prophets, who did very powerful
miracles.
If Jesus had not given powerful miracolous signs, nobody would have believed in Him,
and the pharisees would not need kill Him.
The hypotesis that Jesus could have been  a phylosopher is in strong contradiction with the jewish culture;
jews believed that wisdom can come only from God.
No jew would have become a follower of a phylosopher; no phylosopher has ever existed among the jews, but only prophets; in particular, the jews were waiting for the Messiah.

Christianity spread very rapidly among many different peoples, languages, cultures and religions,
in spite of terrible persecutions against christians.
This fact is unique in the history.
In 64 dC (that is about thirty years after Jesus' death) the roman imperator Nero
ordered the first great persecution of christians because he saw in Christianity a menace for the roman empire.
Many other great persecutions of christians were ordered by the roman imperators until 311 dC.
All these persecutions are very well proved by non-christian sources.
In 112 dC, Plinium (a non-christian roman) in a letter to the imperator Traianus frm Bithinia wrote that “all temples have been abandoned and are desert, and the christians are the only responsible of this situation.”
In the same letter he wrote that he tortured some cristians.
I would add that the new christians were asked to leave their pagan and libertine behavior,
to observe very rigid moral and sexual behavior and to be ready to give their life for Christ;
if the apostoles never did miracles, nobody would have accepted this new religion.
In the christian religion, the promise of the eternal life is bound to very rigid moral requests.
In the first century, there were many religions who promised the life after death,
without such rigid requests; certainly the promise of eternal life is not sufficient to explain the success of the christian religion.

More recently, some supernatural facts occured at Fatima.
On the 13-10-1917 more than 70000 people saw the sun dance in the sky, change color, and then fall down and coming up to its normal place; these facts lasted for about ten minutes and were saw not only from the 70000 people at Fatima, but also from people living in the villages around Fatima.
Among those people there were also many atheist journalists from some anticlerical journals,
who were there in order to discredit the religious  “superstitions” of catholicism, since the child Lucia said that on that day God would have given a great sign for everybody.
In fact, since 1910, the portuguese government had started a very hard battle against the Catholic Church: many religious orders were expelled and their property confiscated, new legislation banned the teaching of religion in schools and universities and annulled many religious holidays. Persecution of Catholics in the early years of the republic attracted international attention and brought the new political system into conflict with foreign diplomats, humanitarian organizations, and journalists.

Those journalists have written very detailed accounts of the facts occurred at Fatima ,
which were reported on all newspapers in the world, including the New York Times.  
Among the journalists present at Fatima on October 17, there was  the (atheist) director Avelino de Almeida of the government (and very antireligious) newspaper "O Seculo”. The article, published with the title "Terrifying Event! How The Sun Danced In The Sky Of Fatima"  can be found on the site

www.ewtn.com/fatima/apparitions/October.htm

In his article, the journalist describes a crowd of biblical dimensions, spread in the fields of Fatima. At a certain point, this immense crowd begins to cry "Miracle! Miracle!" looking at the sun. The journalists describes then an amazed crowd, who cry and pray.
I have tried to anlalyse these data to see whether it was possible to find a plausible explanation, excluding a divine intervention, but  I have found none. The miracle of Fatima is the most extraordinary and well recorded miracle in all history. This miracle has occurred in the Catholic Church, since the three children were catholics (Lucia, the only one of the three children still alive is a catholic nun).
The fact that so many people saw these phenomena cannot be explained
without the hypotesis of a supernatural being, because neither science nor
logic would allow something like that to happen.
Besides these facts occured exactly in the day and the place indicated several monthes before by the child Lucia. Neither science nor logics can explain the capacity to foresee the future.

A brief and incomplete description of the supernatural facts occurred at Fatima can be found also in some contemporary encyclopedias, for example the Britannica (also available on internet at www.britannica.com)
gives at the voice Fatima :

village and sanctuary, Vila Nova de Ourém municipality, Santarém district, central Portugal; it is located on the tableland of Cova da Iria, 18 miles (29 km) southeast of Leiria. Fátima was named for a 12th-century Moorish princess and since 1917 has been one of the greatest Marian shrines in the world, visited by thousands of pilgrims annually. On May 13, 1917, and in each subsequent month until October of that year, three young peasant children, Lucia dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto, reportedly saw a lady who identified herself as the Lady of the Rosary. On October 13, a crowd (generally estimated at about 70,000) gathered at Fátima witnessed a “miraculous solar phenomenon” immediately after the lady had appeared to the children.


The fundamental role of miracles in the history of Christianity cannot be doubted.
The miracles done by Jesus proved that He was the Messiah, and the miracles done by the apostoles proved that they were really sent by Christ.

Miracles still happen within the catholic church.
In the following site the 66 official miracles occured at Lourdes are described.
The miracolous nature of these healings have been scientifically proved

http://www.catholic-forum.com/catholicteacher/lourdescontents.html


Other interesting sites

http://www.fatima.org/miracle1.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

http://www.sancta.org/eyes.html

I have given above several rational arguments which explain why the certainty of the existence of God is for me as strong as the certainty that I exist.

I give you here some consideration about the church.

Who has the authority to interpret correctly the Bible and to teach correctly Jesus' teachings?

Only a person who knows and understands what Jesus taught can teach what Jesus taught.
So, who are the persons who really know Jesus' teachings?
Many think they are teaching what Jesus taught, but they teach different doctrines, therefore it is evident that they are teaching only their opinions, because Jesus cannot contradicts Himself.

Jesus gave the commandment to teach the Gospel ONLY to His disciples and He NEVER gave this commandment to the crowds; this clearly proves that not all can teach the Gospel, but only those who have been taught and sent (directly or indirectly) by Jesus.

How did the Church's mission  pass to each generation?
The Bible explains this to us.

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples to them, and said, It is not right that we should neglect the word of God to serve tables.
6:3 Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.
6:6 These they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

The apostolic mission is passed to other people directly from the apostoles.

Acts 14:19 And certain Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, who, having persuaded the people, stoned Paul, and dragged him out of the city, supposing he was dead.
14:20 Yet, as the disciples stood around him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had made disciples of many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
14:22 Strengthening the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God.
14:23 And when they had appointed elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they committed them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

Again it is Paul (who in his turn received the apostolic mission with the laying of hands, see Acts 9:15-19) who appoints the elders.

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.
2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.

Paul writes clearly that the presbyterate is received with the imposition of hands.

The prespityters in their turn, appointed other people:

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

Christ founded His Church 2000 years ago; He ordered the apostoles to teach His Word, and they appointed other people, who in their turn appointed other people, etc.  so that the apostolic mission has lasted until our days.
This is the catholic Church, which receives its apostolic mission form Christ and teach the true teachings of Christ, as they were given to the apostoles.
There is an historical connection between the present catholic church and the church founded by Christ 2000 years ago, while there is no historical connection between the many protestant denominations and the church of Christ.
In fact Christ never appeared to Luther or Calvin, etc.; Christ never authorized Luther to found a new church and to teach his opinions as if they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
All the apostoles did many powerful miracles which proved that they were really sent by Christ, but Luther did no miracle in order to prove that his interpretations were really inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The protestant churches teaches many sinful doctrines, for example that divorce and remarriage are permissible, that abortion is permissible (some denominations), etc.

Mt 16:18 And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tm 3:15)

These two verses are sufficient to prove that the Church of Christ teaches infallibly the truth.
Christ founded His church 2000 years ago and He assured us that the gates of Hell  shall not prevail against His Church. The Bible assures us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
If the protestant churches were the church of Christ (which one among thousends of different denominations?), it would mean that Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hell would have not prevail against His church and that the Bible is wrong when it says that the Church is the pillar of the truth.
In fact, before 1500 dC there were only the catholic church and the eastern orthodox church.
Since both the catholic church and the orthodox church teach  doctrines such as prayer for the dead, prayers to saints, etc. if protestants were right, this would imply that the church founded by Jesus 2000 years ago had been defeated by Satan for about 1500 years.
Christ spent more than three years with His disciples and taught them; How is it possible that Jesus' teachings were forgotten and replaced with sinful teachings for about 1500 years?
All the people who lived during those centuries would have been induced to sin by the church founded by Christ; it is absurd that a loving Father would have allowed this to happen, and this would have certainly meant that the gates of Hell had prevaled against the church of Christ, in contradiction with His own words.
Christ cannot contradict Himself; if Christ has taught through His Church certain doctrines for 1500 years, these doctrines cannot be considered sinful.

Besides, only to Peter Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven; this proves that Jesus gave Peter a special role in the Church ; this is sufficent to prove Peter's supremacy. Consider that the very first act done by Jesus after founding His Church, is to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; there is then a fundamental relation between these keys and the Church. After Peter's death in Rome, who has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven? I think that the most logical answer is: Peter's successor in Rome, the Pope.
The special role of Peter still exist in the Church of Christ, and it is the role of Peter's successor, the Pope. This special role allow christians to identify with certainty the only true Church of Christ. There is in fact an historical continuity between Peter and the present Pope, the apostolic succession.

Protestants usually think that their interpretations are inspired by the Holy Spirit ; but they are divided in  thousends of different denominations and they have different interpretations.
Since the Holy Spirit cannot contradicts Himself, it is evident that their interpretations are only fallible human opinions.
In fact, when Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, He was speaking directly to the apostoles only, and NOT to the crowds. John 16 :12-13"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Jesus NEVER made this promise to the crowds, but ONLY to the Apostoles when they were TOGETHER WITH PETER. Therefore you cannot  generalize this promise to every christian; this verse can be applied ONLY to the bishops (the apostoles' successors) when they are together with the Pope (Peter's successor).
I believe that God loves us; it follows that God has not abandoned us to our fallible human interpretations and opinions.
Through the prophets, God prepared the Jews (even if only some of them) to receive Christ; Christ remained with His disciples for about three years and half and taught them all the necessary moral and spirital knowledges for our salvation, so that in their turn they could teach others, who in their turn could teach others, etc.
In this way the teachings of Christ has spread throughout the world and the centuries through His Church, the catholic Church.
A loving Father would never abandon His children to their human and fallible opinions.
A loving Father would certainly give His children a “guide” so that they could receive His holy and good teachings.
This “guide” is the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ 2000 years ago.


Usually protestants say that the catholic church has been corrupted :
If this were true, it would mean that Jesus was a lier, because He said that the gates of Hell would have not prevailed agaisnt His church.
The truth is that corrupted men have been present within the church since the very beginning (Judas was one of the apostoles), but the church was never corrupted because its teachings were always good.
Judas was sent by Jesus to teach the Gospel, to heal the sick, to cast demons (see Mt 10 :1-8)
The fact that there were men within the church who commited grave sins, does not mean that the church is corrupted.
Every man is responsible of his own sins, but the church is a divine institution and is above its human members and its doctrine is divine.
The fact that Judas was corrupted does not mean that church of Christ was corrupted.

Usually protestants believe in the Sola Scriptura principle, but there is  in this case no verse in the Bible which establishes this principle. This is then a striking contradiction of protestantism.
The Bible did not come down from the sky one day.
The biblical canon was established by a Concilium of catholic bishops three centuries after Christ, and so the christian communities lived for three centuries without the New Testament.
Jesus never wrote anything, which clearly proves that the christian faith cannot be founded on a book.
Jesus founded a Church , and NOT a book.
Jesus chose to found a living Church, a living and visible guide for all christians, to help them to understand the Truth.
Jesus is still the head of the Church and He still leads His Church.
Jesus still teaches and guides us through His living Church, the Catholic Church.
The Bible says that “The Church is the pillar and  bulwark of the truth” (1Timothy 3 :15).
Jesus gave the Church the authority of binding and loosing (Mt. 18 :17-18).
Jesus never wrote anything ; the New Testament has been produced by the Church, and the Church still produces writings to teach us the spirital and moral Truth.
The same Holy Spirit Who inspired the authors of the Bible, still leads the Magisterium of the Church in its apostolic mission.
The Cathechism contains the official teachings of the Church, and it is to be considered inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You can find the Cathechism on line at

www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html