In this section you can write a comment with any question you may have about Christianity, and we, within our capabilities, will give you an answer.
If you are a Catholic but need clarification, if you are a Protestant and you think you must correct a Catholic error, if you are an agnostic who has not give up in your search for the truth, or if you are simply a Christian but have questions or want to dig deeper, do not be afraid and ask.
When Thomas saw Jesus and still doubted, Jesus did not just reproach him for his lack of faith; he took his hand and asked him to put his finger into his wound. This is how faith problems are resolved, addressing them directly instead of trying to ignore it for fear of losing faith… or discovering it.
Leave your question below (it will be published after review):
Please maintain a respectful tone; offensive comments or those in all caps will be ignored. We appreciate it if you indicate your religion or denomination to help us better focus our response.
previous users’ questions
-
Do you think that Mary, who is always shown as so humble in the Bible, would agree with prayers being said to her, churches being built in her honor, and images of her being venerated?
LikeLike
-
- Prayers to Mary Seek Her Intercession, Not Worship
Praying to Mary is not about worshiping her, but about asking for her intercession, just as we ask friends and family to pray for us. In John 2:1-11, we see Mary interceding at the wedding at Cana, leading Jesus to perform His first miracle. If she cared for others’ needs on earth, how much more now in heaven?
What loving mother would be offended by her children asking for her help? Rather than diminishing Mary’s humility, our prayers to her acknowledge her special role in God’s plan and allow her to do what she has always done—lead us to Christ. Importantly, these prayers are ultimately directed to God, seeking His grace through Mary’s intercession. She does not grant our petitions; she brings them before God.
- Honoring Mary is Biblical and Pleasing to God
The angel Gabriel called Mary “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), and Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared her “blessed among women” (Luke 1:42). Mary herself prophesied, “From now on, all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). If God exalts her, and Scripture says all generations will honor her, why wouldn’t we?
Churches dedicated to Mary are not about worshiping her but recognizing her as the Mother of God (Luke 1:43). Such devotion glorifies God, who chose her for this role.
- Venerating Images is Not Idolatry
Having images of Mary is no different from keeping photos of loved ones. What mother would be offended that her children keep reminders of her presence? These images are not worshiped but serve as visual reminders of her role in salvation history and her maternal care.
In the Old Testament, God commanded the making of sacred images, such as the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22). The key difference is that Catholics do not worship statues or paintings; they use them to focus their prayers and devotion on God and His saints.
Conclusion
Mary’s humility does not mean she rejects honor—on the contrary, her entire mission is to magnify the Lord (Luke 1:46). Praying to her, dedicating churches in her name, and venerating her images are not acts of worship but expressions of love and respect. And as a mother, she surely delights in bringing her children’s needs to God.Would Mary approve? Absolutely. Because true Marian devotion always leads to Christ.
LikeLike
- Prayers to Mary Seek Her Intercession, Not Worship
-
-
Did Mary go to visit Elisabeth to make sure that what the angel had announced to her was true?
LikeLike
-
No, Mary did not go to visit Elizabeth to verify whether what the angel had announced was true, neither about her own pregnancy nor about that of her cousin.
Mary was already convinced of what the angel had announced.
When the angel Gabriel revealed to her that she would conceive the Son of God, Mary did not doubt or ask for a sign; instead, she responded with full acceptance:
“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38).
This attitude contrasts with that of Zechariah, who did doubt the angel’s announcement about Elizabeth’s pregnancy and was punished with muteness (Luke 1:18-20). If Mary accepted without hesitation what God announced about herself—a far greater miracle—it would have been even easier for her to believe that Elizabeth, in her old age, was also expecting a child by God’s grace.Mary traveled out of charity, not out of doubt.
Scripture says that “Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah” (Luke 1:39). Her haste in going to Elizabeth does not show any desire to verify something, but rather a desire to help her cousin during her pregnancy, as elderly Elizabeth might have needed assistance. Her visit was an act of love and service.LikeLike
-
-
Did Mary know that her son was going to be resurrected?
LikeLike
-
This is a question that many Christians ponder, especially when reflecting on Mary’s suffering at the foot of the Cross. Did she, as the Mother of Jesus, have prior knowledge of His Resurrection? The answer requires examining Scripture, tradition, and theological reasoning.
- Mary’s Knowledge of Jesus’ Mission
Mary was aware that her Son was the promised Messiah. From the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38), she knew Jesus was the “Son of the Most High” and that His kingdom would have no end. However, the exact details of how this would unfold were not fully revealed to her at that moment.
At the Presentation in the Temple (Luke 2:25-35), Simeon prophesied that a “sword would pierce” Mary’s soul, foreshadowing the suffering she would endure. This suggests that she understood Jesus’ mission would involve great pain, but it does not explicitly indicate whether she knew of His Resurrection beforehand.
- Jesus’ Prophecies About His Resurrection
Jesus repeatedly foretold His Resurrection to His disciples (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22), but they failed to comprehend it fully. It is reasonable to assume that Mary, as someone deeply attuned to God’s plan, would have grasped at least part of this message. However, even the disciples—who heard Jesus predict His Resurrection multiple times—were still shocked and confused when it happened.
Some theologians argue that Mary, being “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), had a deeper faith and understanding than the disciples. She may not have known the specifics, but she would have trusted that God’s plan would not end in permanent defeat.
- Mary’s Faith at the Foot of the Cross
At the Crucifixion, Mary stood by Jesus, sharing in His suffering (John 19:25-27). The Gospels do not indicate that she reacted with despair, but this should not be misunderstood as a lack of suffering. Unlike the disciples who fled out of fear of being arrested, Mary remained with Jesus because she was His mother and could not abandon Him, no matter the cost.
It is also important to clarify that knowing of the Resurrection—if she did—would not have diminished her pain. The agony of a mother seeing her son suffer and die in such an excruciating manner is beyond words. Her suffering was not just about His death, but about witnessing His immense physical and emotional torment. Even if she had some hope in the Resurrection, that would not have alleviated the sorrow of watching her beloved Son endure such agony.
- Tradition and Theological Reflection
The Church has long upheld that Mary played a unique role in salvation history, not just as the Mother of Jesus but as a model of faith. While early Christian writings do not explicitly say she “knew” about the Resurrection in detail, they affirm that her trust in God’s plan remained firm.
Pope St. John Paul II, in his reflections on Mary, suggested that she experienced Holy Saturday in profound expectation. While others despaired, she waited with faith. But waiting with faith does not mean she did not suffer. Her faith was not a supernatural shield against grief; it was the strength that allowed her to endure it.
Conclusion
Did Mary know Jesus was going to be resurrected? She likely did not have complete foreknowledge of the event’s specifics, but she had unwavering faith in God’s promises. Her deep understanding of Scripture and trust in God suggest that, while she suffered profoundly, she did not lose hope.However, we must not think that faith in the Resurrection would have made her suffering less real. A mother does not grieve merely because her son has died, but because she has seen him suffer and die in agony. That pain cannot be taken away by any theological knowledge or expectation of future glory. Thus, whether or not she fully understood the Resurrection beforehand, her suffering at the foot of the Cross remains one of the greatest expressions of love and sorrow in human history.
LikeLike
- Mary’s Knowledge of Jesus’ Mission
-
-
Do you think abortion is justified if the pregnancy harms the health of the pregnant woman and if it is the result of rape?
LikeLike
-
For a Christian, this is not a matter of opinion. Human life has intrinsic dignity and must be protected from conception. The circumstances surrounding a pregnancy—however difficult or tragic—do not change this fundamental truth.
✦ Let’s explore this in more detail:
✅ From the moment of conception, a human being exists. This is not just a religious belief but a biological fact: at fertilization, a unique and unrepeatable human DNA is formed. For Christians, this new life is not just biological but also spiritual—a human being with a soul created by God.
✅ The right to life is inalienable. No innocent human being can be deprived of life because of the circumstances of their conception or the suffering their existence may bring. Only in cases of self-defense is taking a human life morally justified—but abortion does not fit this criterion. A child conceived in rape is not an aggressor, and a pregnancy—even a dangerous one—is not an act of direct violence against the mother.
✅ What about when the mother’s health is at risk? In medicine, there is a clear distinction between direct abortion (intentionally killing the unborn child) and medical treatments that may unintentionally result in the child’s death. The Catholic Church permits life-saving treatments for the mother, even if they indirectly result in the loss of the child (such as removing a cancerous uterus). However, a direct abortion—where the goal is to kill the child—is never justified. The principle is clear: we must try to save both lives whenever possible.
✅ What about rape? Rape is a horrible crime, and every woman who suffers such violence deserves justice, compassion, and support. However, the child conceived is not the criminal—he or she is an innocent victim. Punishing the child with death for the crimes of the rapist is not justice. The right response to such a tragedy is not more violence but love and care for both the mother and the child.
✅ Hard cases do not justify a general rule. Some argue that exceptions like these justify abortion as a whole, but less than 2% of abortions are performed due to rape or health risks. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. If we truly care about justice, we must recognize that abortion is not a solution—it is the elimination of an innocent life.
Christianity calls us to a higher standard: to protect the weak, care for those who suffer, and affirm the dignity of all human life, even when it is difficult. The right answer to suffering is not death, but love, support, and real solutions that respect the dignity of both mother and child.
For more information look at our article (automatically translated) here: https://apologia21-com.translate.goog/2017/04/07/es-el-aborto-moral/?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=wapp
LikeLike
-
Do you think it is fair that a ten, eleven or twelve year old girl who was raped is forced to carry a pregnancy resulting from that assault to term, even if this harms her physical and mental health?
LikeLike
-
This is a deeply painful question. Rape is an act of brutal violence, and when it affects a child, it wounds body and soul. But even in such extreme suffering, taking the life of an innocent unborn child is not a solution—it is a second injustice.
1️⃣ TWO VICTIMS, NOT ONE CRIME TO ERASE
✅ The girl is a true victim who needs total support: medical, psychological, spiritual. She must be surrounded with love, safety, and professional care.
✅ But the baby is also an innocent human being. The circumstances of its conception—however tragic—do not remove its dignity or right to live.
✅ Abortion punishes the innocent for the crime of the guilty. The rapist deserves prison. The child deserves life.
2️⃣ HEALTH RISKS AND MORAL PRINCIPLES
✅ If a pregnancy poses a direct threat to the mother’s life, moral theology allows for interventions that indirectly result in the child’s death (such as removing a diseased uterus). This is not abortion as a direct killing, but the result of a tragic medical necessity devised to save a life, not to kill one.
✅ Most young pregnancies, though high-risk, can be managed with intensive care. The assumption that abortion is “safer” ignores long-term physical and psychological harm often caused by abortion itself.
✅ Mental health matters. But many women who abort under pressure later suffer deeply. Abortion does not heal trauma—it can deepen it.
3️⃣ THE VALUE OF LIFE IS NEVER RELATIVE
✅ Human dignity is not based on age, health, or how one was conceived. A child conceived in rape is still a child. To say it can be discarded is to declare some lives are worth less than others.
✅ Countless stories exist of women who chose life after rape—and found healing not by erasing the child, but by reclaiming their motherhood as a victory over evil.
➖ Conclusion ➖
True justice and compassion mean protecting both victims: the assaulted girl and her unborn child. One suffered violence; the other faces execution for a crime it did not commit. In the face of horror, we must respond with love—not with more violence, but with courage, healing, and the defense of all innocent life. The unborn child is a human being, and no innocent human being can be killed for someone else’s sins.
LikeLike
-
-
-
Why does the Roman Catholic Church, unlike the Orthodox Church, not consider Emperor Constantine I a saint?
LikeLike
-
Why Doesn’t the Catholic Church Consider Constantine I a Saint?
-
Holiness Is Not Measured by Historical Importance
Constantine the Great (272–337 AD) played a crucial role in the spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire. His Edict of Milan (313 AD) ended the persecution of Christians, and he convened the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), which defined the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. However, the Catholic Church does not canonize people based on their historical or political impact but solely on their personal holiness. -
Constantine Did Not Lead a Life of Exemplary Holiness
For someone to be canonized, the Church requires that they have lived a life of heroic virtue without serious moral failings. Constantine, despite his contributions to Christianity, does not meet this standard. His personal life was marked by actions incompatible with sainthood, including the execution of his son Crispus and his wife Fausta under questionable circumstances. These acts reveal a character that does not align with the life of a saint. -
Late Baptism and Lack of a Converted Life
Another key factor is that Constantine was only baptized on his deathbed. In Catholic tradition, holiness is not merely about receiving the sacraments but about living the faith consistently. Although his baptism granted him forgiveness of sins, there is no evidence that he lived a truly Christian life before that moment. The Church does not canonize those who convert at the last minute without demonstrating a life of virtue. -
Differences with the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church venerates Constantine as a saint because their tradition often canonizes rulers who supported the Church, even if their lives were not morally impeccable. In contrast, the Catholic Church follows a stricter standard: only those who have demonstrated an exceptional life of holiness, free from grave scandal, are canonized. -
An Important Emperor, but Not a Saint
In conclusion, Constantine was a key figure in Church history, and his contributions to Christianity are undeniable. However, canonization is not a recognition of historical merits but of personal sanctity, and in this regard, Constantine falls short. His legacy is significant, but the Catholic Church does not consider him a model of Christian life.
LikeLike
-
-
-
Did the Romans persecute the early Christians?
LikeLike
-
Yes, the Romans did persecute early Christians, but the intensity and reasons for persecution varied over time.
- Initial Roman Attitudes
At first, Christianity was not specifically targeted by Roman authorities. It was often viewed as a sect of Judaism, which was a legally recognized religion (religio licita). However, as Christianity grew and distinguished itself from Judaism, tensions increased. -
Nero’s Persecution (64 AD)
The first recorded imperial persecution of Christians occurred under Emperor Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. Tacitus, a Roman historian, reports that Nero blamed Christians for the fire, subjecting them to brutal executions, including being burned alive or torn apart by animals. -
Second and Third Century Persecutions
Domitian (81–96 AD): Likely targeted Christians along with Jews who refused to worship the emperor.
Trajan (98–117 AD): Set a policy (documented in a letter to Pliny the Younger) that Christians should not be actively hunted, but if accused, they could avoid execution by renouncing their faith.
Marcus Aurelius (161–180 AD): Christians faced renewed hostility, often being blamed for plagues and natural disasters due to their refusal to sacrifice to Roman gods. -
Decius and Diocletian’s Empire-Wide Persecutions
Decius (249–251 AD): Issued the first empire-wide persecution, requiring all citizens to perform sacrifices to the Roman gods or face execution.
Diocletian (284–305 AD): Led the most severe persecution, known as the Great Persecution (303–311 AD), destroying churches, burning Scriptures, and executing many Christians. -
End of Persecutions
Persecutions largely ended with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, issued by Emperor Constantine and Licinius, granting religious tolerance to Christians.
Conclusion
Yes, the Romans persecuted early Christians, especially when they refused to worship the emperor or participate in the state religion. However, persecution was not constant and varied based on the policies of different emperors. The eventual legalization of Christianity marked a dramatic shift in its status within the empire.LikeLike
- Initial Roman Attitudes
-
-
What is the historical evidence that Peter is the founder of the Church of Rome and that he was in Rome and was martyred there?
LikeLike
-
Biblical, historical and archeological evidence. You can find all that on this video: https://youtu.be/Dibl3qDDOE4?si=ANFaXb99KIG2TRWG
LikeLike
-
-
I have two questions
Who is the highest authority? The Bible or the Church?
What is the difference between the images found in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches and the pagan idols of antiquity?
LikeLike
-
- Who is the Highest Authority: The Bible or the Church?
The highest authority in Christianity is God. The question of whether the Bible or the Church has more authority is a false dilemma because both come from the same source: God.
a) The Bible is the Word of God, but not the only authority
The Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), but it was neither written nor interpreted in a vacuum. The Church existed before the Bible, as the first Christians practiced their faith before the New Testament was written and compiled.b) The Church has the authority to interpret the Bible
Jesus Christ founded the Church on the apostles (Matthew 16:18) and gave it authority: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). The Bible does not interpret itself, and without a legitimate authority to explain it, it can lead to thousands of conflicting interpretations (as seen in Protestantism).c) Tradition and the Magisterium complete divine revelation
God speaks to us through Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (Council of Trent, Dei Verbum 10). This has always been the Church’s teaching.Conclusion: There is no opposition between the Bible and the Church. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the legitimate authority that safeguards and interprets the Bible.
- What Is the Difference Between Christian Images and Pagan Idols?
Some people confuse the use of images in the Church with idolatry, but there are fundamental differences:
a) Idolatry: Worshiping a false god
Idolatry consists of giving worship to an image as if it were God himself (Exodus 20:3-5). In pagan religions, people believed that statues contained the presence of the deity, making them objects of worship.b) Christian images: Veneration, not worship
The Church does not worship images but uses them as reminders of spiritual realities. This is called veneration (dulia), which is very different from worship (latria), which is reserved for God alone.The Second Council of Nicaea (787) declared that sacred images are venerated but not worshiped. It is similar to keeping pictures of loved ones to remember them with affection.
c) God himself commanded the making of sacred images
God forbade idols but ordered sacred images on several occasions:He commanded the construction of golden cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22).
Moses made the bronze serpent to heal the Israelites (Numbers 21:8-9).
Solomon’s Temple was filled with images (1 Kings 6:23-29).
If God commanded sacred images, they cannot be inherently wrong.Conclusion: Christian images are not idols but tools to elevate the heart to God
LikeLike
-
-
Isn’t the concept of a god who dies and then rises again of pagan origin? There are similar stories in Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythology.
LikeLike
-
- Understanding the Claim
Many skeptics argue that Christianity borrowed the idea of a dying and rising god from ancient pagan myths, such as Osiris (Egyptian), Adonis (Greek), or Mithras (Roman). The assumption is that since similar stories existed before Christianity, the resurrection of Christ must be just another version of these myths. But is this really the case?
- Key Differences Between Pagan Myths and Christ’s Resurrection
At first glance, some pagan myths superficially resemble Christ’s resurrection, but a closer examination reveals crucial differences:
A) Myth vs. Historical EventPagan myths are typically symbolic cycles linked to nature (e.g., fertility, the seasons, agricultural cycles). The Resurrection of Christ is a historical event, witnessed by real people, recorded in historical documents, and foundational to Christianity. The New Testament presents it as a fact of history, not a poetic allegory (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).B) The Nature of “Dying and Rising” in Paganism
Figures like Osiris do not truly rise from the dead. Osiris, for example, is dismembered and reassembled but never returns to life as Christ did. He becomes the ruler of the underworld, not a glorified, risen Lord. Other pagan gods (e.g., Tammuz, Adonis) experience cyclical deaths and rebirths linked to vegetation cycles. Jesus, however, dies once and rises once, permanently defeating death (Romans 6:9).C) Jewish Context and the Uniqueness of Jesus
The idea of a bodily resurrection at the end of time was already part of Jewish belief (Daniel 12:2, Maccabees). Christianity developed within a Jewish, not pagan, framework. If the resurrection were borrowed from pagan myths, why did Jews (who rejected paganism) embrace it?- Why the Pagan Comparison Fails
A) Chronological IssuesMost alleged parallels appear after Christianity, not before. Many pagan myths that skeptics cite (e.g., the Roman Mithras cult) developed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., well after Christ’s resurrection, so it is possible that they borrowed from Christianity, not the other way round.
The early Christian accounts (written in the 1st century) show no sign of being influenced by pagan resurrection myths.
B) Early Christians Rejected Pagan Myths
The early Church Fathers denounced pagan religions rather than borrowing from them. If Christianity were just repackaged paganism, why did Christians refuse to worship other gods, even at the cost of their lives?- Conclusion: A Unique Event, Not a Borrowed Myth
The Resurrection of Jesus is radically different from pagan myths in its historicity, purpose, and theological meaning. Unlike mythological figures, Jesus actually died and was seen alive by multiple eyewitnesses (Luke 24:36-43, 1 Corinthians 15:6). His resurrection was not a symbolic cycle but a once-for-all victory over sin and death (Revelation 1:18).
Rather than borrowing from paganism, Christianity transformed history with an event unlike anything in mythology. The empty tomb is not a poetic metaphor—it is a fact that changed the world.
LikeLike
-
-
will you not continue posting videos?
LikeLike
-
We only have a video published and that was just because we wanted to publish an audio. We might do something like that in the future if need be, but as for now, our project is focused on written articles.
Thanks for asking.LikeLike
-
-
How can we be sure that the Bible is not incomplete?
LikeLike
-
If you are Protestant, you just can’t be sure.
Jesus did not leave us a book—He left us a Church. A living, teaching authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, whose mission is to preach the truth until the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20). The Bible itself confirms this:
- The Church, not the Bible, is the “pillar and foundation of truth”: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
- The Church is divinely protected in her teaching: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
- The Holy Spirit guarantees that the Church will teach the truth: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
From the very beginning, it was the Church that preached the Gospel and transmitted the faith orally. Only later were some of these teachings written down. The same Catholic Church that Christ founded wrote, compiled, and canonized the books of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is no Bible without the Church.
Fifteen centuries later, when Protestantism appeared, its founders accepted the Catholic Church’s Bible—but with one major problem: they removed several books from it because they did not fit their theology. The same authority they rejected (the Catholic Church) was the one that preserved, copied, and defined the canon of Scripture, yet they trusted it only selectively—when it suited them.
How can Catholics be sure that the Bible is complete?
- Because Christ established a Church, not a book
Jesus never commanded His followers to compile a set of writings. He commanded them to preach (Mark 16:15), and He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them in truth (John 16:13). The Bible itself came from this Church, not the other way around. -
Because the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, defined the canon
The list of books we now call “the Bible” was settled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century, particularly in the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). Later, the Council of Trent (1546 AD) reaffirmed this canon against Protestant attacks. If the Catholic Church was wrong about the Bible’s contents, then Protestants have no reason to trust their own version of it. -
Because there is no historical evidence of “lost” inspired books
Some writings, like the so-called “Gospel of Thomas” or other Gnostic texts, were never part of apostolic teaching. The early Church rejected them because they contained false doctrines. The same process that rejected these false writings also affirmed which books were truly inspired—the ones Protestants now accept (minus the ones they removed). -
Because Divine Providence guarantees it
God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). If He intended to reveal His truth, He would not allow essential parts of it to be lost. If the Bible were incomplete, it would mean God failed to preserve His Word—something that contradicts His promise that His words shall never pass away (Matthew 24:35).
Conclusion: The Bible is complete because the Church says so
The only reason anyone believes in the Bible is because the Catholic Church preserved and canonized it. The Protestants, by rejecting the Church’s authority, have no foundation for trusting that their Bible is complete—especially when they have already tampered with it.LikeLike
-
What were the books of the Bible that were rejected by Protestants?
LikeLike
-
The books of the Bible rejected by Protestants are primarily the Deuterocanonical books, which are included in the Catholic Bible but omitted from most Protestant Bibles. These books were part of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by early Christians) and were affirmed in the Canon of Scripture by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and later reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 AD). However, during the Reformation (16th century), Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers rejected them, referring to them as “Apocrypha.”
-
Deuterocanonical Books Rejected by Protestants:
These seven books were removed from the Protestant Old Testament:
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Additionally, some parts of Daniel and Esther were also removed:
Daniel: Chapters 3:24-90 (The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men), Chapter 13 (Susanna), and Chapter 14 (Bel and the Dragon)
Esther: The Greek additions, which provide more religious context -
Why Did Protestants Reject These Books?
Jewish Canon (Masoretic Text vs. Septuagint): The Protestant Reformers followed the Masoretic Text, a Hebrew version of the Old Testament finalized by Jewish scholars in the 1st-2nd century AD, which did not include the Deuterocanonical books. However, early Christians used the Septuagint, which did include them.
Martin Luther’s Influence: Luther, following Jewish sources, removed these books from the Old Testament because they contained Catholic doctrines he rejected, such as:
Prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:44-46)
Intercession of saints
Purgatory
Reformation Theology: Luther initially even questioned the inclusion of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation in the New Testament but ultimately retained them. -
The Protestant “Apocrypha”
Initially, many early Protestant Bibles (such as the 1611 King James Bible) still included these books in a separate section called the “Apocrypha.” However, by the 19th century, most Protestant editions completely removed them. -
Do Protestants Reject These Books Completely?
While Protestants do not accept them as inspired Scripture, some denominations consider them valuable historical and moral texts.
The Anglican Church (Church of England) and Lutherans sometimes include them in their lectionaries.
The Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholic Church both affirm these books as canonical. -
Conclusion
The rejection of the Deuterocanonical books by Protestants was a decision made in the 16th century, not something originally practiced by early Christians. The Catholic Church maintains their validity as part of the biblical canon, while Protestants follow a smaller Old Testament canon based on post-Christian Jewish decisions.
LikeLike
-
-
What is Apollinarianism?
LikeLike
-
Apollinarianism is a Christological heresy that emerged in the 4th century, founded by Apollinaris of Laodicea. This doctrine attempted to explain the nature of Christ but ended up distorting the truth of the Incarnation.
- The Core of Apollinarianism
Apollinaris taught that Christ had a human body and a sensitive soul but not a rational human mind (nous). Instead, he claimed that the divine Logos replaced the rational mind in Christ. This was an attempt to safeguard the unity of Christ’s person and to avoid the idea of two separate beings in Jesus. However, this teaching compromised the full humanity of Christ, which is essential for the doctrine of salvation. -
Why Is It a Heresy?
The Church condemned Apollinarianism because it undermined the true Incarnation. If Christ did not assume a complete human nature—including a rational human soul—then He could not fully redeem humanity. This goes against the biblical principle stated in Hebrews 2:17:
“He had to become like his brothers in every way, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and to make atonement for the sins of the people.”
By rejecting a fully human intellect in Christ, Apollinaris effectively denied that Jesus could truly represent and redeem fallen humanity.
- Condemnation by the Church
Apollinarianism was formally condemned by several Church councils, including:
The First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), which reaffirmed the full humanity and divinity of Christ.
The teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers, such as St. Gregory of Nazianzus, who famously stated: “What has not been assumed has not been healed”—meaning that for Christ to heal human nature, He must fully assume it.
4. The Importance of Orthodoxy in Christology
The rejection of Apollinarianism helped the Church clarify the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which was later formally defined at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The true Catholic teaching affirms that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man—one divine Person with two complete natures, human and divine, without confusion, change, division, or separation.Conclusion
Apollinarianism was an attempt to explain the mystery of Christ’s nature but ultimately distorted the truth. The Church’s response ensured that Christian doctrine remained faithful to Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. Understanding these historical heresies helps us appreciate the precision and depth of Catholic Christology, which safeguards the truth that Christ is both perfect God and perfect man, our true Redeemer.LikeLike
- The Core of Apollinarianism
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to cairo Cancel reply