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
-
How do Orthodox interpret Matthew 16:18?
LikeLike
-
The Orthodox Church does value Matthew 16:18, but they interpret it in a way that rejects the full meaning intended by Christ and preserved by the Catholic Church. This leads to a serious divergence on the nature of the Church and its visible foundation.
1️⃣ What the Verse Really Says
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Simon: “You are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my Church.” The Catholic Church has always understood this to mean that Peter himself is the rock, not just his confession. This is clear from the grammar, the context, and the early Church Fathers.
While Orthodox Christians argue that “the rock” is merely Peter’s faith, this ignores the deliberate wordplay and the unique authority Christ gives to Peter in the next verse: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom.” The keys signify governing authority, not just belief.
2️⃣ The Fathers Support the Catholic View
It is false to say that the early Church Fathers uniformly interpreted the rock as Peter’s faith. In fact, many of them clearly affirmed that Peter himself is the rock, and that he received a unique authority among the apostles.
✅ St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century), revered also by the Orthodox, called Peter “the one on whom the Church was built” (De unitate 4).
✅ St. Augustine—often misquoted—said in multiple places that Peter was the rock, even if he also highlighted the role of faith.
✅ St. Leo the Great (5th century) affirmed that Peter speaks through every Pope, showing a clear awareness of the Petrine office continuing in Rome.
The Orthodox claim that all bishops are equal and that the early Church had no concept of papal primacy is a historical revision. The reality is that Rome was always seen as having a special authority, not merely of honor, but of doctrinal and disciplinary leadership.
3️⃣ A Post-Schism Position
The modern Orthodox rejection of papal primacy hardened after the Great Schism (1054). Before that, Eastern bishops frequently acknowledged the Pope’s authority in resolving disputes, confirming councils, and preserving unity. Even after disputes arose, the East still looked to Rome for confirmation of doctrinal matters.
Only after centuries of political and theological division did the Orthodox fully redefine their ecclesiology to justify not being in communion with the Pope. Their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 reflects this rupture.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is not rooted in the original teaching of the Church but in later theological developments shaped by separation from Rome. While we love and respect our Orthodox brethren, their rejection of the Pope’s authority is contrary to the words of Christ, the witness of Scripture, and the consistent tradition of the Fathers. The Church is built not only on Peter’s faith, but on Peter himself, whose authority continues in the bishops of Rome, the successors of the apostle.
To deny this is to deny the visible foundation that Christ Himself willed for His Church.
LikeLike
-
-
Is there evidence that Christians prayed to saints before the 4th century? Many Church Fathers from earlier centuries say in their writings that saints already in heaven pray for those still on earth, but none seem to say that one can pray directly to them for their intercession.
LikeLike
-
Yes—there is pre-Constantinian evidence. The earliest explicit examples come not from theological treatises but from popular prayer and epigraphy: short invocations scratched on catacomb walls and a Marian prayer preserved on papyrus. These show that Christians were already directly addressing holy persons in heaven and asking for their intercession before the 4th century.
1️⃣ What counts as “prayer to the saints”?
We are talking about addressing a departed holy one (apostle, martyr, the Mother of the Lord) with petitions like “pray for us” or “help us,” not the adoration due to God alone. The question is whether such direct addresses appear before A.D. 300–313. They do.
2️⃣ Catacomb graffiti (mid–late 3rd century)
In the Memoria Apostolorum at the Catacombs of San Sebastiano along the Via Appia (Rome), pilgrims left hundreds of brief invocations to Peter and Paul. Among them are formulas such as “Peter and Paul, intercede for Victor” and “Peter and Paul, remember us”—clear requests to the Apostles to pray on behalf of the living. Archaeologists date these invocations to the 200s, before the peace of the Church.
3️⃣ The earliest Marian prayer on papyrus (3rd century)
From Christian Egypt we have the Sub tuum praesidium, preserved on a Greek papyrus commonly dated to the 3rd or very early 4th century. It directly addresses Mary as “Mother of God” and asks her deliverance from dangers: “Mother of God, do not disregard our petitions in time of trouble, but rescue us from danger, only pure, only blessed.” This is precisely a petition to a saint for aid and protection, and it predates the Council of Ephesus by well over a century.
4️⃣ Why written theology may sound quieter before Nicaea
It’s true that many pre-Nicene Fathers emphasize that the saints in glory pray for the Church, while their surviving doctrinal works say little about addressing them. But that silence in treatises doesn’t negate the practice evidenced in devotional settings. Persecuted Christians were cautious in public; the most revealing window into daily piety often comes from inscriptions, not formal manuals. The epigraphy and the Egyptian papyrus together show both: (a) Christians asking specific saints to intercede; (b) Christians entrusting themselves to the Mother of the Lord—before Constantine.
5️⃣ Continuity with the logic of the Body of Christ
Already in the 2nd–3rd centuries Christians venerated martyrs’ tombs, kept their anniversaries, and offered prayers for the departed. In that same web of communion it is natural—and historically attested—that the faithful also asked the glorified members to pray for them. “Pray for us, Victor,” on epitaphs of the era, and “Peter and Paul, intercede…” in the catacombs, are precisely that: direct petitions to heavenly intercessors.
6️⃣ Anticipating an objection
Some early authors warn against giving to angels or creatures the adoration owed to God. Catholics agree. But the inscriptions and the Sub tuum are not acts of latria; they are requests for prayer and help—exactly the kind of intercession Scripture commends among the living (“pray for one another”) extended to those who “live to God” (Lk 20:38).
➖ Conclusion ➖
Yes: before the 4th century we already find Christians directly addressing the saints. The catacomb invocations to Peter and Paul and the Egyptian Sub tuum praesidium are solid, pre-Nicene witnesses. They don’t replace prayer to God; they manifest the Church’s confidence that those who reign with Christ love us and can powerfully intercede for us.
LikeLike
-
-
How Can the Church be Infallible If One Church Council Contradicts Another?
LikeLike
-
Yes, this is a very common objection, but it arises from a misunderstanding of what Church infallibility means and how Church councils function. Let’s clarify this carefully.
1️⃣ What Infallibility Really Means
Infallibility means that when the Church solemnly defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, especially through an ecumenical council confirmed by the Pope or through an ex cathedra papal declaration, she cannot err. This infallibility applies only to definitive teachings — not to every statement or pastoral initiative.
So, not every council is infallible in every part, and not every change in emphasis or expression implies a change in doctrine.
2️⃣ Do Councils Contradict Each Other?
No — not in matters of dogma. What people usually see as “contradictions” are actually pastoral or disciplinary differences, or different ways of expressing the same truth.
Take this example:
✅ The Council of Florence (1439) solemnly declared that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church — a dogma repeated by many councils and popes.
✅ Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16) said that people who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel, but sincerely seek God and strive to do His will, may be saved.
At first glance, this seems contradictory. But in fact, the idea that God can work outside the visible bounds of the Church has been part of Catholic theology for centuries — long before Vatican II. For instance:
➖ St. Thomas Aquinas already taught that God can act outside the sacraments, even though He normally works through them.
➖ The example of Cornelius in Acts 10 shows that someone can receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, if God so wills.
➖ The Fathers often acknowledged that the sacraments are necessary for salvation, but also that God is not bound by them.
So the teaching of Florence is still true: there is no salvation apart from the Church. But this doesn’t exclude the possibility that God may incorporate someone into the Church in ways known to Him alone — exceptionally and mysteriously. That’s what Vatican II clarifies.
3️⃣ What Makes an “Exception” Legitimate?
It’s crucial to understand what an exception really is:
✅ It must be rare and exceptional, not the norm.
✅ It must depend entirely on God’s initiative, not on human moral effort alone.
✅ It must never be universalized into a new “rule” — otherwise, it stops being an exception and contradicts the dogma.
So yes, a Buddhist who never heard of Christ but follows the natural law sincerely may be saved if God grants him extraordinary grace. But we cannot say that all good non-Christians are saved — that would turn the exception into a general principle, which contradicts the dogma.
Florence defines the normative path: the Church is necessary. Vatican II explores how people may be mysteriously joined to the Church, without contradicting the original dogma.
4️⃣ Vatican II: Pastoral, Not Dogmatic
Another major point of confusion is the nature of Vatican II itself.
It was declared — explicitly — to be a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. Popes John XXIII and Paul VI made clear that it did not define any new dogmas.
Yes, some documents are called “dogmatic constitutions,” but this is a technical title, meaning they deal with doctrine — not that they contain dogmatic definitions. The Pope confirmed after the council that no new dogma was proclaimed.
This is why Vatican II must be understood in continuity with previous teaching. If any passage seems ambiguous or contradictory, we must always interpret it in light of established doctrine. The dogma prevails; the pastoral interpretation must serve it, not override it.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Church cannot contradict herself in matters of doctrine. Councils may differ in tone, emphasis, or language — but not in defined truth. The apparent contradiction between Florence and Vatican II dissolves when we understand that:
✅ Florence affirms the norm: no salvation outside the Church.
✅ Vatican II explores exceptions, already implied in Tradition, and emphasizes God’s freedom to save outside visible structures.
✅ These exceptions must remain rare, unguaranteed, and subordinate to the dogma.
✅ Vatican II, being pastoral, must be read in light of previous infallible teaching — not above or against it.
Both liberals and part of traditionalists fail to respect the unity of the Church’s Magisterium when they interpret Vatican II as standing on its own or when they consider it in unavoidable contradiction with the Magisterium. The truth is one, consistent, and safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. And the key to understanding it is always the same: Tradition.
LikeLike
-
-
Elohim means gods in plural?
LikeLike
-
Good question. Does the Hebrew word “Elohim” mean “gods” in the plural?
1️⃣ The grammatical meaning
✅ “Elohim” is grammatically plural in Hebrew. The root is El (God), and the plural form Elohim can indeed refer to gods in general (for example, in pagan contexts like Exodus 12:12 or Psalm 82:1).
✅ However, when referring to the one true God, Elohim is always used with singular verbs and adjectives, showing that it is understood as a singular reality.
👉 Example: Elohim bara (“God created,” Genesis 1:1) uses a singular verb, even though Elohim is plural in form.
2️⃣ Why use a plural for the one God?
There are several possible (and compatible) explanations:
➖ Plural of majesty: as in some ancient languages, the plural can express greatness or majesty. It’s somewhat similar to the “royal we” used by monarchs—though not identical.
➖ Plural of fullness or intensity: some scholars interpret it as an “abstract plural,” indicating the fullness, completeness, or perfection of the divine being.
➖ Foreshadowing of the Trinity: While the Old Testament does not reveal the Trinity explicitly, this plural form paired with singular verbs can be seen as a providential hint of the triune nature of God. The early Church Fathers often pointed to this as a veiled anticipation.
3️⃣ Not polytheism
❌ The use of “Elohim” does not imply belief in multiple gods. Biblical faith is radically monotheistic: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
✅ Yet this monotheism is not flat or simplistic—it allows for mystery, and ultimately prepares the way for the full revelation of the Trinity: one divine essence in three Persons.
➖ Conclusion ➖
“Elohim” is a plural in form, yes—but when used for the true God, it always refers to a singular reality. It expresses majesty, fullness, and mystery, not a plurality of gods. And for Christians, it beautifully anticipates the revelation of the one God in three divine Persons.
LikeLike
-
-
Is atheism destroying the moral fabric of society?
LikeLike
-
That’s a serious question. Is atheism destroying the moral fabric of society? The answer requires balance—but we can’t ignore the long-term consequences of removing God from our worldview.
1️⃣ Morality needs more than opinion
✅ Atheism may promote personal ethics, but it lacks a foundation for objective moral truth. If there’s no Creator, then good and evil become matters of taste or social consensus.
✅ This leads to relativism: “What’s right for you may not be right for me.” But without an objective standard, how can we condemn injustice, cruelty, or dishonesty?
✅ As Dostoevsky warned: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”
2️⃣ What about good atheists?
✅ Many atheists live moral and generous lives. But this is often because they inherit their values from the Christian culture in which they were raised (or from another religious tradition that affirms a transcendent moral order).
But here’s the problem:
👉 A good atheist may live by values like honesty, self-sacrifice, or respect for life—but he cannot pass them on as objective truths.
👉 To his children and grandchildren, those values will appear as personal choices, not universal principles. And once moral values are seen as optional, they’re often replaced by whatever feels convenient or self-serving.
That’s how a society slowly shifts from moral conviction to moral subjectivism, and from there to practical egoism—even if no one intended it.
3️⃣ Can morality survive without God?
The Church teaches that God’s moral law is written in every human heart (Romans 2:15). This “natural law” allows even non-believers to recognize right and wrong.
But there’s a catch:
➖ The human heart is fallen—wounded by original sin.
➖ Without a transcendent reference point, the voice of conscience can be drowned out by selfishness, cultural pressure, or rationalization.
✅ Belief in God doesn’t just tell us what is right—it gives us the strength and motivation to live it. It anchors moral truth beyond our preferences.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Atheism is not instantly destructive—but in the long run, a society that rejects God loses the ability to defend and transmit moral truth. What begins as ethical individualism often ends in moral confusion. If we want to preserve justice, human dignity, and selfless love, we must return to the One who wrote those laws in our hearts—and who alone can help us live them.
LikeLike
-
It is said that countries with a majority of atheists are safer and have a better quality of life.
LikeLike
-
The claim is simply false
Let’s be clear from the start: no, atheist countries are not richer and safer. This statement is based on a confusion of terms and superficial comparisons. What many people mean by “atheist countries” are actually secularized countries — especially in Western Europe — where religion plays a smaller public role today, but where the majority of people still identify as Christian, even if loosely. These are not atheist countries.
Truly atheist countries would be those where atheism has been imposed or officially promoted: the Soviet Union, North Korea, Communist China, Cuba, etc. And in those places, we do not see safety or prosperity — but poverty, oppression, and massive human rights violations.
2️⃣ Wealth comes from freedom and capitalism, not from atheism
If China is now growing economically, it is not because it’s atheist (it has been that way for decades while remaining poor), but because it has embraced capitalism and global trade. The same happened in Eastern Europe: when the USSR collapsed and religious freedom returned, prosperity began to grow — not during the atheistic period, but after it.
The truth is: capitalism, not atheism, brings economic growth. And in fact, the most successful capitalist country of all — the United States — is far from atheist. It remains one of the most religious countries in the developed world.
3️⃣ Rich countries ≠ atheist countries
Yes, rich countries are often safer. But they are not necessarily atheist. You can find poor atheist countries (like Vietnam), rich atheist countries (like Japan), poor religious countries (like Guatemala), and rich religious countries (like the USA). There is no consistent pattern that proves atheism produces prosperity. The real pattern is this:
✅ When countries become richer, many people start to abandon religion.
❌ But when countries abandon religion first, they do not automatically become richer. Often the opposite.Atheism imposed from above has usually led to decline and suffering. It is comfort and wealth that often lead societies to become spiritually lazy and drift from God.
4️⃣ Misunderstanding the source of human dignity
Many of the “safe” and prosperous societies today were built on Christian foundations. Their legal systems, respect for human rights, and education were shaped by centuries of Christian civilization. If these countries still function well, it’s not thanks to atheism, but because they are still running on the moral fuel inherited from the Gospel.
As these roots are forgotten, the moral structure begins to weaken: rising suicide rates, loneliness, depression, and the normalization of euthanasia and abortion. These are not signs of a healthy society.
➖ Conclusion ➖
So no, atheist countries are not safer or more prosperous. That’s a myth based on cherry-picked comparisons and confused definitions. Wealth and safety come from many complex factors — and atheism is not one of them. In fact, history shows that when atheism is imposed, it leads to suffering, not progress.
And the deeper truth is this: material comfort without God is spiritual misery. A society that abandons its Creator may still appear strong, but it is already starting to collapse from within.
LikeLike
-
-
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to nazarmaskoonee Cancel reply