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
-
In the early church were there women priests, deaconesses and bishops?
LikeLike
-
Simply put: No.
There is some evidence of women referred to as “deaconesses” in the early Church, but the Greek word for deacon (diakonos) means “helper” or “servant.” At that time, the term was not yet a technical designation for a specific holy order, so it could refer to anyone performing a helping role. For example, during baptism by immersion—where adults were dressed in thin white robes and immersed in water—women assisting other women were called deaconesses. This was done for reasons of propriety, as it would not have been appropriate for a man to assist in such situations.Some deaconesses received a blessing for their role, but this was not a sacramental ordination. This is similar to what happens today with laypeople (such as a sacristan) who are given a special role to help in the Church but do not receive holy orders. Likewise, men who served as deacons without receiving ordination could also be blessed for their service.
As for priestesses and female bishops, there is no evidence whatsoever that they existed in the early Church, nor were such roles even considered. The Church consistently understood that the priesthood and episcopate, as part of holy orders, were reserved for men, following the example of Christ and the Apostles.
LikeLike
-
-
Is anal or oral sex within a Christian marriage a sin?
LikeLike
-
That is an inappropriate question
LikeLike
-
I understand and value your concern, but I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this matter and this is a good chance to throw Catholic light into it. I have replied to that query, hope it sets things right.
LikeLike
-
-
Sexual morality within marriage is guided by the principles of natural law and the dual purpose of the marital act: procreation and union. Acts that deviate from these purposes, even within marriage, can be sinful.
Key Points:
1. Nature and Purpose of the Marital Act:
o Sexual acts must remain open to life (procreative) and express genuine love and unity (unitive).
o Any sexual act that deliberately frustrates the procreative purpose, or reduces the marital act to mere pleasure, is considered contrary to God’s design.
2. Oral and Anal Sex:
o Oral sex: If it is used as foreplay leading to natural marital intercourse, it may be morally acceptable, provided it respects the dignity of both spouses and does not substitute for the full marital act.
o Anal sex: This is traditionally condemned outright as unnatural and intrinsically disordered. The Church teaches that it violates the natural design of the human body and the dignity of the marital union.
3. Dignity and Respect:
o Any sexual act must respect the dignity of both spouses. Using a spouse solely for personal gratification or engaging in acts that degrade their dignity is a sin against the virtue of chastity within marriage.Supporting Sources:
• Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2360–2363): Sexual acts within marriage must respect both their procreative and unitive purposes.
• St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 154, Art. 11): He condemns unnatural acts as contrary to both reason and divine law.
• Humanae Vitae (Paul VI): Emphasizes the integrity of the marital act as being open to life.St. Paul warns against sodomy (arsenokoitai) in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, a term that applies to both homosexual and heterosexual acts of this nature. He also condemns acts “contra naturam” in Romans 1:26–27. Since the rectum is not designed for intercourse, such acts clearly fall under the category of “contra naturam” (against nature). Tradition has also consistently condemned these practices.
The first Christians lived in a society where homosexuality and all sorts of sexual depravities were considered normal. When some Christians today argue that the Church needs to adjust its sexual morality to modern times, as if these behaviors were new phenomena requiring fresh reflection, they overlook that the Church was born into a world much like this one (at least in terms of sexual morals). The Church has always had a clear stance on these matters, and there is no need to “re-invent the wheel” by reshaping it into a square.LikeLike
-
-
Is the devil responsible for all the bad things in the world?
LikeLike
-
The devil is not responsible for all the bad things in the world, but he plays a significant role in influencing evil. The reality of sin and suffering is more complex, involving the interplay of the devil’s actions, human free will, and the fallen state of creation.
- The Devil’s Role in Evil
The devil, also known as Satan, is a fallen angel who actively opposes God’s will and seeks to lead humanity into sin (1 Peter 5:8, John 8:44).
Catholic teaching acknowledges that the devil can tempt individuals to commit sin, distort the truth, and spread spiritual and moral evil in the world.
However, the devil does not have unlimited power. He cannot force people to sin; he can only tempt or deceive. -
Human Free Will
Humans have free will and are accountable for their own choices. While the devil may tempt, the decision to act sinfully lies with the individual (James 1:14-15).
Many evils in the world, such as war, injustice, and greed, stem from human sin and misuse of free will rather than direct demonic intervention. -
The Fallen State of Creation
After original sin (Genesis 3), the world became subject to disorder, suffering, and death (Romans 8:20-22). This includes natural evils, like disease or natural disasters, which are consequences of the fall but not directly caused by the devil.
These natural evils are part of the brokenness of creation but are not moral evils, as they do not involve deliberate wrongdoing. -
God’s Sovereignty
Ultimately, God is sovereign and permits evil for reasons that are sometimes beyond human understanding. God can bring good out of even the worst situations (Romans 8:28).
The devil operates only within the limits allowed by God. For example, in the story of Job, Satan could act only as far as God permitted (Job 1:12).
Conclusion
The devil is responsible for some of the bad things in the world, particularly in leading souls into sin and perpetuating spiritual evil. However, much of the evil we see arises from human free will and the fallen nature of creation. Catholics are called to resist the devil’s temptations through faith, prayer, and the sacraments, trusting in God’s ultimate victory over all evil.LikeLike
-
Does good have to exist for evil to exist, and evil for good to exist?
LikeLike
-
Good and evil are fundamentally different in their nature, and their relationship is asymmetrical. Good exists independently because it is rooted in God, who is Goodness itself. Evil, however, does not exist as an independent entity; it is a privation—a lack or corruption of good.
To illustrate this, we can use the metaphor of light and darkness. Light is a real, tangible phenomenon, while darkness is simply the absence of light. Darkness has no substance or independent reality; it exists only where light is absent or blocked. In the same way, good is a positive reality, while evil is the absence, rejection, or distortion of good. This means that good does not require evil to exist, but evil necessarily depends on the existence of good. Without light, there can be no darkness; without good, there can be no evil.
From a theological perspective, God existed in perfect goodness before creation, without any evil. Good is thus primary and foundational. Evil came into existence only when created beings, endowed with free will, chose to turn away from God, the source of all good. This turning away is like casting a shadow—darkness appears not because it has substance but because something obstructs the light.
However, the relationship between good and evil can be confusing from a human perspective because we often recognize and appreciate good by contrasting it with evil, much as we notice the brightness of a candle more vividly in the dark. This experiential contrast, though useful for our understanding, does not imply that good and evil are metaphysically interdependent. Good can exist without evil, just as light can shine endlessly without darkness.
In conclusion, good must exist for evil to exist, just as light must exist for darkness to appear. Evil cannot exist without good, but good can—and does—exist without evil. The metaphor of light and darkness clarifies this relationship: good is primary, like light, while evil is secondary, like darkness, and wholly dependent on the existence of good to have any reality at all.
LikeLike
- The Devil’s Role in Evil
-
In Leviticus 11:10-12 it says that of what comes from the sea you can only eat what has scales and fins and what has neither scales nor fins is an abomination. Why?
LikeLike
-
Leviticus 11:10–12 is part of the Mosaic dietary laws given to the Israelites, and it specifies that they could only eat sea creatures that have both fins and scales. Those without these characteristics—such as shellfish or other aquatic creatures—are deemed “unclean” and described as an “abomination.” The reasons for these restrictions can be understood from several perspectives:
- Ritual Purity and Holiness
The dietary laws symbolized separation from other nations and set Israel apart as a holy people (Leviticus 11:44-45). Eating only certain animals was a tangible way to remind the Israelites of their covenant with God and their call to be distinct.
The laws emphasized order and classification, reflecting the Creator’s sovereignty over His creation. Animals that didn’t fit certain patterns (e.g., no fins and scales in aquatic creatures) were often deemed unclean, reflecting symbolic impurity. - Health Considerations
Some scholars suggest that these laws had a practical dimension, promoting health by avoiding foods that could be more likely to carry diseases or be harmful if not properly prepared. Many “unclean” sea creatures, such as shellfish, are more prone to toxins or spoilage in ancient preservation conditions.
Fins and scales may have been a practical identifier of fish that were safer to consume. - Symbolism of Behavior
Animals with fins and scales are typically free-swimming, while those without often live on the sea floor or are scavengers. The Israelites were often taught to emulate “clean” and upright behavior rather than scavenging or consuming the remains of dead things, which could be seen as symbolic of impurity or sin. - Cultural and Religious Distinction
These dietary laws distinguished Israel from neighboring cultures, many of whom consumed “unclean” creatures like shellfish and certain sea animals. By adhering to these laws, the Israelites visually and behaviorally reinforced their unique identity as God’s chosen people. - Spiritual Lessons
The term “abomination” in this context is not primarily a moral judgment against the animals but rather a designation of their unsuitability for ritual consumption. This distinction taught the Israelites discernment and the need to honor God’s instructions, even in mundane matters like eating.
The dietary restrictions encouraged mindfulness of God’s authority and holiness in all aspects of life.
From a Christian perspective, these dietary laws are understood to be part of the old covenant, which was fulfilled in Christ. In the New Testament, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9–16 emphasized that these distinctions were no longer binding for Christians, symbolizing the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God (if the new People of God is now open to all nations, there is no need for an external distinction like this, or circumcision etc). Also, food prescriptions, like most of the old covenantal instructions, are a first step of preparation for the People of God, making physical lessons which in the New Covenant will be spiritual lessons, so the concept of “mind what you eat because some things can make you unclean” is a preparation to understand “mind what you see/do/think because some things can make you impure/unholy”.
LikeLike
- Ritual Purity and Holiness
Who should we pray to: Jesus Christ or God the Father?
LikeLike
-
Short answer: You can pray to both… or to the three of them, since you can also pray to the Holy Spirit… or to God as a whole.
Long answer:
In Christian theology, the answer depends on the context of your prayer and personal relationship with the Trinity. Both Jesus Christ and God the Father are valid and appropriate persons to address in prayer, as they are both part of the Holy Trinity. Here’s a more detailed explanation:
-
Prayer to God the Father
Scriptural basis: Jesus often teaches us to pray to the Father. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9–13), Jesus says, “Our Father who art in heaven…”
Jesus as mediator: In John 14:13–14, Jesus tells His disciples, “Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” This indicates that prayers are directed to the Father but through Jesus.
Praying to the Father is traditional in Christianity because the Father is the source and origin of the Trinity. -
Prayer to Jesus Christ
Scriptural examples: The early Christians also prayed directly to Jesus. For example:
Stephen, the first martyr, prays directly to Jesus in Acts 7:59: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
In John 20:28, Thomas addresses Jesus as “My Lord and my God!”
As our Savior: Praying to Jesus recognizes His role as Redeemer and Savior. He is the one who intercedes for us and brings us into communion with the Father (Hebrews 7:25). -
Prayer to the Holy Spirit
While your question focuses on Jesus and the Father, it is also appropriate to pray to the Holy Spirit, asking for guidance, wisdom, and strength (John 14:26). All prayer ultimately involves the entire Trinity. -
Theological Understanding
Unity in the Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one God. Prayer to any person of the Trinity is prayer to the one God.
Practical emphasis: Many Christians address the Father most often, following Jesus’ example, but it is also deeply meaningful to pray directly to Jesus, especially when reflecting on His humanity, sacrifice, and presence in our lives.
LikeLike
-
What do you think about Pope Francis appointing Roberto Pasolini as the new preacher of the papal household, who is in favor of homosexuality?
LikeLike
-
I believe the Church is not in Pope Francis’s hands, but in Jesus Christ’s hands, so I’m confident God will eventually bring something good out of all this chaos.
LikeLike
the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:1-9 are the same?
LikeLike
-
“Woman” is Genesis is Eve, mother of all humans, and “Woman” in Revelation (and in the gospel of John) is Mary, the New Eve, mother of all believers, and Mary here is also a symbol of the Church. The Genesis prophecy you mention refers to both Eve and Mary, since Jesus, in terms of flesh, was born directly from Mary but is also a (remote) descendant of Eve.
LikeLike
Did Mary remain a virgin even if her hymen broke when she gave birth?
LikeLike
-
The Church affirms that Mary’s virginity remained intact during the birth of Christ, a belief often referred to as the virginitas in partu. This means that Jesus was born miraculously, without violating Mary’s physical integrity. Early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine described this as Christ passing through Mary as light passes through glass, emphasizing the miraculous nature of the Incarnation and birth.
LikeLike
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. When it says they shall be one flesh, does it refer to children?
LikeLike
-
Great question. The phrase “they shall become one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 is a rich and multifaceted expression. At its core, it signifies the deep unity and intimate bond between husband and wife within marriage. This unity involves physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions, suggesting that marriage is not merely a partnership but a profound union where the two become inseparable in purpose and identity.
While this phrase does include the procreative aspect—since children are a natural outcome and a “fruit” of the marital union—it goes beyond that. The unity here is also about mutual support, shared life goals, and an inseparable bond that reflects God’s design for marriage. Children, as products of this union, do indeed embody the “one flesh” concept in an almost literal sense, as they are a physical expression of the union of their parents. However, the “one flesh” unity remains true even in marriages without children, as it primarily denotes the unique bond created between the spouses.
The expression “they shall become one flesh” suggests that, in marriage, the husband and wife enter into a bond as profound and enduring as the natural biological connection between parent and child. Just as Adam declared, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), this bond establishes a kinship between husband and wife that is so deep and intrinsic that they become, in a way, one entity. This intense unity implies that marriage is a permanent union: just as a parent can never cease to be the parent of their child, no matter what may happen, so too are spouses bound together in a union that is indissoluble. This is why, in the biblical vision, marriage is understood as an unbreakable covenant, reflecting a bond that is not only physical but also woven into the very identity of the two who become one.
LikeLike
In Philippians 2:6 is it saying that God took the form of a servant to serve himself?
LikeLike
-
In Philippians 2:6, Paul is not suggesting that God took the form of a servant to serve Himself. Instead, the verse describes Christ’s humility and willingness to renounce His divine privileges out of love and obedience to the Father, serving humanity in the process. Let’s examine the passage in context:
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:6-7, KJV)
In this passage, Paul is highlighting several key points:
- Equality with God: Jesus, being divine, did not consider His equality with God as something to cling to selfishly or use to His own advantage.
-
Self-Emptying (Kenosis): Christ “made himself of no reputation” (or, in some translations, “emptied himself”). This is the theological concept of kenosis, where Jesus voluntarily limited His divine prerogatives to fully assume human nature.
-
Taking the Form of a Servant: Jesus took on human flesh and humbled Himself to the point of becoming a servant, not for Himself, but to serve humanity and fulfill the will of the Father. This included His mission of teaching, healing, and ultimately sacrificing Himself on the cross for humanity’s salvation.
-
The Purpose of His Servanthood: His servanthood was directed outward — toward God the Father, to whom He was obedient, and toward humanity, whom He came to save. Christ’s life and mission are framed as acts of love, not self-serving actions.
In short, Philippians 2:6-7 describes Christ’s profound humility and self-sacrificial love, serving humanity and fulfilling God’s redemptive plan rather than seeking to serve Himself. This underscores the Christian belief that Christ’s incarnation and sacrifice were acts of grace meant to reconcile humanity to God.
LikeLike
Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 4:6 support sola scriptura?
LikeLike
-
1 Corinthians 4:6 is sometimes cited in support of sola scriptura because Paul warns the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written.” Some interpret this to mean that Christians should rely exclusively on Scripture as the ultimate authority. Here’s the verse in the King James Version:
“And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”
However, examining the context it reveals a few key points against seeing this verse as a basis for sola scriptura:
Paul’s instruction “not to go beyond what is written” is not talking about Scriptures, but refers to warnings against pride and divisions within the community, rather than establishing Scripture as the sole rule of faith. Earlier in the letter, Paul addresses issues like factions and boasting in leaders, urging the community to stay humble and unified.
Elsewhere, Paul emphasizes the importance of both written Scripture and apostolic tradition. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, he instructs the faithful to “stand firm and hold to the traditions” they were taught “whether by word or by letter.” This suggests that Paul viewed both the written and oral teachings as authoritative.
Besides, the early Christian Church didn’t hold to sola scriptura as a guiding principle. For the first centuries, Christians relied heavily on the oral teaching and authority of the apostles and their successors. This structure was necessary before the New Testament was even fully canonized.
LikeLike
Is Mary still the mother of Jesus in heaven?
LikeLike
-
Yes for sure. Relationships don’t disappear in heaven, on the contrary. Even husband-and-wife relationship survives death (though not as “husband” and “wife” as sexual partners but in a different relationship). Also, near death experiences clearly emphasize family and human earth relationships as preserved in the spiritual realm. Both the early Chirtian and the Jewish and biblical tradition supports the same idea.
LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to Officemanager Cancel reply