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
-
the early church did not believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
LikeLike
-
Correct, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura—the belief that Scripture alone is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice—was not a view held by the early Church. The early Christians operated within a framework that included Scripture (initially the Old Testament and gradually the writings of the New Testament), Apostolic Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church.
Here are a few key points that illustrate why Sola Scriptura was not an early Church doctrine:
Apostolic Tradition: The early Church relied on the teachings of the Apostles, transmitted orally and practiced communally, as authoritative. Writings such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 emphasize adhering to traditions “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” The Church Fathers, like St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius, defended the faith against heresies through both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, which they considered inseparable.
Development of the New Testament Canon: The New Testament as we know it was not fully established in the early centuries. Church leaders and councils, guided by Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church, discerned which writings were divinely inspired and should be included. This process itself relied on sources beyond Scripture alone.
Role of the Magisterium (Teaching Authority): The early Church acknowledged the authority of bishops, especially within councils, to interpret Scripture and settle doctrinal disputes. This teaching authority helped guide believers and provided a unified understanding of Christian doctrine that wasn’t dependent solely on individual interpretations of Scripture.
Church Fathers’ Writings: Church Fathers like St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom quoted Scripture extensively but also affirmed the authority of Tradition and the Church. For instance, St. Augustine famously said, “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.”
For these reasons, Sola Scriptura as a doctrine would have been foreign to the early Church’s understanding of authority and the practice of faith. It developed later, notably during the Protestant Reformation, as a response to what reformers saw as excesses or abuses in Church practices.
LikeLike
-
-
What does it mean that Jesus in the Bible was called the Son of Man?
LikeLike
-
In the Bible, the title “Son of Man” for Jesus carries rich theological and prophetic meaning. It’s one of Jesus’ most frequently used titles for Himself, and it has at least three primary layers of significance:
1- Humanity: At its simplest, “Son of Man” underscores Jesus’ full humanity. In Hebrew and Aramaic, “son of man” is an idiomatic expression for a human being, emphasizing His identification with humanity and His experience of human life, emotions, limitations, and suffering.
2- Messianic Role: The term also alludes to a prophetic vision in Daniel 7:13-14, where “one like a son of man” comes with the clouds of heaven, is presented before God, and receives a kingdom and authority that are everlasting. By referring to Himself this way, Jesus signals His fulfillment of this prophecy as the Messiah with divine authority, destined to establish an eternal kingdom.
3- Suffering Servant: In the Gospels, “Son of Man” is often connected to Jesus’ mission to suffer, die, and rise again for humanity’s salvation. This self-reference, especially in the context of His passion, highlights His role as the suffering servant (linked to passages like Isaiah 53) who would endure and redeem through suffering.
Through these meanings, “Son of Man” uniquely combines Jesus’ human nature, His Messianic office, and His redemptive mission, affirming that He is both truly human and divinely appointed to bring salvation to the world.
LikeLike
-
-
the virgin Mary could not read or write?
LikeLike
-
We don’t know. The idea, supported by tradition, that Mary was consecrated to the Temple, similar to Samuel, suggests a possibility of her receiving education, including literacy, as Temple training probably included scriptural knowledge. However, while this offers a compelling argument, it is not definitive. Cultural and historical contexts still suggest that literacy rates were generally low for women in that era. Therefore, while consecration to the Temple could imply a higher likelihood of literacy, it cannot be conclusively stated that Mary was literate, but she probably was.
LikeLike
-
-
What does it mean that Moses and Elijah appeared at the transfiguration of Jesus?
LikeLike
-
The appearance of Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration of Jesus signifies the connection between the Law (represented by Moses) and the Prophets (represented by Elijah) with Jesus as the fulfillment of both. This event emphasizes Jesus’ divine authority and His role as the culmination of God’s revelation. Their presence also highlights the continuity of God’s plan throughout the Old Testament, affirming Jesus’ mission and the importance of listening to Him.
LikeLike
-
-
Why did Jesus call Mary woman and not mother?
LikeLike
-
In the books of John (gospel and Revelation), Mary is called “Woman” becase John presents her as the New Eve, and the name of the first woman when created was Woman (Genesis 2:23), only after sin was she called Eve (Geneis 3:20). As a New Eve Inmaculate (= without sin), Mary was an improved version of Woman (the inmaculate virgin), and the opposite of Eve (the sinner), since the antitypos is always superior to the typos. But you can read an explanation about this matter here: https://english.apologia21.com/2023/05/13/mary-in-the-bible-the-new-eve-immaculate-conception/#in-the-new-testament
LikeLike
-
-
the gospel of Luke was written in the 3rd century?
LikeLike
-
No, the Gospel of Luke was not written in the 3rd century. Scholarly consensus, including traditional Catholic scholarship, places it within the 1st century, likely between the late 50s and early 60s AD. Luke’s Gospel contains detailed knowledge of events like the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but from a Catholic perspective, this doesn’t necessitate a post-70 authorship, as Jesus, being God, would naturally have foreknowledge of such events.
Moreover, the Acts of the Apostles, also attributed to Luke, makes no mention of key events like the martyrdom of Paul (around 67 AD), despite covering much of Paul’s ministry. This silence strongly suggests that Acts was written before Paul’s death, situating it in the early 60s and the Gospel of Luke even earlier. There is no historical or theological basis for a 3rd-century dating in any reliable Christian tradition.
LikeLike
-
-
Did Herod’s massacre of the children really happen?
LikeLike
-
The massacre of the infants, often referred to as the “Massacre of the Innocents,” is described in the Gospel of Matthew (2:16-18), where King Herod orders the killing of all male children in Bethlehem under the age of two, in an attempt to eliminate the infant Jesus. However, outside of the biblical account, there is no direct historical record of this event, leading some historians to question its historicity.
Several points are relevant in considering its plausibility:
Herod’s character: King Herod is well-documented as a ruthless ruler. According to historical sources like the Jewish historian Josephus, Herod committed numerous atrocities, including killing members of his own family out of fear for his throne. This suggests that such a massacre would not have been out of character for him. Lack of other sources: The massacre is not mentioned in other ancient historical sources, such as Josephus, who documented many of Herod’s actions. However, Bethlehem was a small town, and the number of children killed might have been relatively low, which could explain why the event didn’t attract widespread attention at the time. Symbolic elements: Some scholars argue that the story in Matthew carries symbolic elements, drawing parallels with the story of Moses and Pharaoh in the Old Testament. This does not necessarily negate its historicity, but it adds a theological layer to the narrative.In summary, while there is no external historical corroboration for Herod’s massacre, the event fits within the known character of Herod and the context of the time. For Christians, the account holds theological significance, regardless of the lack of external historical evidence.
LikeLike
-
-
You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
In the early church did they think it referred to Peter?
LikeLike
-
Yes, in the early Church, many understood Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter himself. The Church Fathers, including figures like Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, and Augustine, generally saw Peter as the “rock” upon which the Church was founded, although interpretations varied slightly. For example:
St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) explicitly stated that Peter was given primacy by Christ, serving as the foundation of Church unity. Origen and St. Augustine acknowledged Peter's role but also interpreted the "rock" as Peter's confession of faith in Christ, thus seeing both Peter and his faith as foundational.This understanding became central to the development of the papacy, with Peter being seen as the first bishop of Rome and his successors inheriting his leadership role. The early Church largely accepted this interpretation as the basis for the Church’s authority and unity.
LikeLike
-
-
Why did the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church separate?
LikeLike
-
The separation between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, known as the Great Schism, took place in 1054 AD due to a combination of theological, political, and cultural differences that had developed over centuries. Here are some key points:
Theological Foundations: The Catholic Church believes that Jesus established the papacy through Saint Peter, whom He appointed as the leader of His disciples. This authority has been passed down through the centuries, with early Popes like Clement I exercising leadership that reflected this role. In contrast, the Orthodox Churches gradually distanced themselves from the concept of papal supremacy in a distant and poor Rome, particularly as the Patriarchate of Constantinople rose to prominence.
Cultural and Political Dynamics: The schism was influenced by the cultural and political context of the time. The decline of the Western Roman Empire helped to emphasize the pope’s role in guiding the Church. At the same time, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) emphasized its ecclesiastical governance, leading to tensions between the two.
Filioque Controversy: The addition of the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church has often been a point of contention. The Catholic Church holds that this clarification of the Holy Spirit’s procession is in line with the original intent of the creed, especially because in the Latin translation the concept was not so clear, while the Orthodox Church’s rejected this addition.
Growth of Patriarchal Authority: Over time, the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople grew, leading to a gradual rejection of papal authority, particularly under political pressures from external forces such as the Ottomans, who didn’t want any interference from Christian countries. This shift was not an instantaneous reaction but rather a complex evolution influenced by various historical events.
Mutual Excommunications: The formal break was cemented in 1054 when mutual excommunications were declared. Since then, while both Churches have sought to engage in dialogue and reconciliation in the modern era, the Great Schism remains a poignant reminder of the importance of unity in Christ’s teachings.
LikeLike
-
-
-
No, that painting depicts Theotecnus’s family and is located in the Catacombs of San Gennaro and dates back to the 6th century.
LikeLike
-
-
-
No, the Bible does not provide specific details about Jesus’ attire during His baptism, but modesty was deeply ingrained in Jewish culture at the time. Public nudity would have been considered highly scandalous. Moreover, there was no practical reason for anyone to be naked in this context. Even today, Christian denominations which baptize adults by immersion, do so with the individual clothed. There is no precedent or reason for nakedness during baptism in Christian tradition.
LikeLike
-
-
Why does the Roman Catholic Church impose celibacy on its priests? In the early church, this was optional.
LikeLike
-
It is important to note that clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is not a matter of doctrine but of discipline. While celibacy was optional in the early Church, over time, it became the normative discipline for Latin Rite priests. Both Jesus and St. Paul present celibacy as a higher calling (Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:32-35), and the Church, recognizing its spiritual and practical benefits, raised the standard for her priests to embrace this lifestyle.
There are several reasons, both spiritual and practical, that support this practice:
Imitation of Christ: Jesus Christ was celibate, and priests, who act “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ), are called to reflect His life more fully. Celibacy allows them to mirror Christ’s total dedication to the Church, His bride.
Undivided Service: An unmarried priest can devote himself entirely to the service of God and His people. St. Paul emphasizes that celibacy allows a person to focus solely on the Lord and His work, without the divided interests that come with marriage and family (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
Practical Considerations: A priest with a family would have significant financial and time commitments. Supporting a wife and children could require a full-time job outside of his priestly duties, which would limit his availability to his parish. Additionally, the Church would face increased financial burdens if it had to support priests’ families.
Spiritual Fatherhood: Priests are spiritual fathers to their communities. Celibacy allows them to dedicate their paternal care to their parishioners without the competing obligations of a biological family.
Safeguarding the Sacrament of Confession: While this is not a common issue, having a spouse could introduce complications regarding the confidentiality of the confessional. Even in cases where trust is strong, human weakness could put the seal of confession at risk.
Avoiding Marital and Family Issues: If priests were married, the Church could face issues such as divorce or family conflicts, which would affect the priest’s ability to serve his parish effectively. Divorced priests could create further complications within the Church community.
While these are some of the reasons behind clerical celibacy, it’s worth noting that in the Eastern Catholic Churches and in some cases within the Latin Rite (e.g., Anglican priests who convert), married priests do exist. However, the Roman Catholic Church continues to uphold celibacy for Latin Rite priests due to the spiritual and practical benefits it provides.
LikeLike
-
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to pastor Cancel reply