Which current religious denominations support the Massacre of the Innocents
Executive summary
Most mainstream Christian denominations do not "support" the Massacre of the Innocents as a good or endorsed act; rather many commemorate the event from the Gospel of Matthew as a historical or liturgical fact and honor the slain children as martyrs — notably Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, various Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and some Eastern Catholic rites — while scholars and some theologians dispute the historicity of Matthew’s account [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Denominational stances range from liturgical remembrance to explicit theological defense of historicity, so the phrase “support” conflates commemoration with endorsement and risks mischaracterizing widely shared religious practice [6] [7].
1. Liturgical commemoration across Western churches
Western Christianity — including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and many Lutheran bodies — observes the Feast of the Holy Innocents (Childermas) on December 28 as a solemn part of Christmastide, using the occasion to remember the children described in Matthew’s nativity narrative rather than to praise Herod’s violence, with red vestments and special services in some traditions [2] [1] [8].
2. Eastern and Oriental observances and varying tallies
Eastern churches also mark the victims: the Byzantine rite and Eastern Orthodox calendars commemorate the Holy Innocents (with differing dates), and Oriental traditions such as West Syrians — including the Syriac Orthodox, Syro‑Malankara Catholic, and Maronite communities — have distinct observances and sometimes larger traditional numbers of victims (e.g., Byzantine 14,000 or an early Syrian list of 64,000), reflecting liturgical memory rather than uniform historical claims [3].
3. Which denominations treat the slaughter as historic vs symbolic
Some Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant writers defend the historicity of Matthew’s account and argue that silence in other ancient sources is not decisive, pointing to Herod’s documented brutality as circumstantial support [6] [7] [9]. Conversely, many biblical scholars and commentators emphasize that the episode is attested only in Matthew and lacks independent contemporary corroboration, leading some academics and commentators to regard it as unlikely or theological in purpose rather than strictly historical [10] [5].
4. What “support” actually means in this context
No mainstream denomination endorses the killings; the churches that observe the feast do so to mourn victims and to interpret the narrative theologically — as evidence of evil opposing the infant Christ or as fulfillment of prophecy — not to justify violence [4] [8]. Statements defending the event’s historicity (notably in Catholic apologetics and conservative outlets) argue for its plausibility and theological import, which can be read as institutional support for its truth claim rather than moral approval of the atrocity [6] [7].
5. Competing motives, agendas and limits of the sources
Liturgical calendars, devotional writings and apologetic sources often have different aims: worship texts memorialize martyrs [1], pastoral sites link the feast to modern concerns about protecting children [8], and apologetic writers defend biblical reliability [6], while scholarly forums highlight the lack of external evidence and treat Matthew’s account as theologically motivated [5] [10]. Reporting and devotional pieces can blur lines between honoring victims, asserting historical claims and using the story for contemporary moral arguments, so conclusions about which denominations “support” the massacre depend on whether one means liturgical commemoration, belief in historicity, or moral endorsement — the evidence in the provided sources supports commemoration across many major Christian traditions and divergent views about historicity rather than any denominational advocacy of the violence itself [2] [1] [6] [5].