Did the Church change her teaching about "blasphemy agaisnt the Holy Spirit"?

[Tis_Bearself]

In other words, to “blaspheme against the Holy Spirit” is shorthand for actively rejecting the Church, God’s mercy, etc. ?

Yep, it’s the rejection of God’s love and mercy, basically.

 

[Naath]

I am trying to figure out why the early christians from the Didache thought it meant something different.

 

[on_the_hill]

I get it now. You cannot be forgiven if you reject forgiveness.

 

[Vico]

So the first Christians did not interpret it right?

Look at the context of Mark 3:22-30, addressing the behavior of the scribes that would not repent:

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said,

“He is possessed by Be-elzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”

23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables,

“How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house. 28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”

30 for they had said,

“He has an unclean spirit.”

 

[TK421]

People as early as St Augustine surmised that this sin was about never repenting.

The Didache doesnt go into great detail about what it means to not be forgiven, but either way it isn’t a sacred text.

 

[thistle]

so, to sum it up: nobody really knows about what is blasphemy agsint the holy spirit, only God.
and what would be sin of certain malice?

Wrong! The Church knows. God gave the Church authority to teach in matters of faith and morals and all teachings are backed by the full authority of God.

 

[NJada]

Well I put a bunch of thoughts I had together. I don’t know if anyone will read all this, but I wrote it, so I’ll post it.

I don’t believe there is any contradiction between the Didache and the Catechism, though I think the Catechism is the fruit of the Church having the benefit of much more time to reflect on precisely what the sin of the Holy Spirit is. It shouldn’t be at all surprising that some of Jesus’ sayings were difficult enough to take generations of Christians to discern. By putting these seemingly unrelated interpretations together, it seems the answer is something like: The communications of the Holy Spirit (to whom sanctification is especially attributed) to us begin with leading us to repentance, therefore rejection of the works and words of the Holy Spirit makes forgiveness impossible. Rejection of the Holy Spirit reveals us to be excusing ourselves of sin, calling God’s justice evil, and making ourselves judge.

Fr. Fergal Cummins connects the immediate context of these passages in the Gospel to the Church’s final conclusion about them:

The RSV Ignatius commentary states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is ‘the sin attributing to Satan the work of God. It is a mature spiritual hardness that directs sinners away from God’s mercy and ends in final impenitence.’ One who blasphemes the Spirit cannot receive forgiveness when he refuses to repent and seek forgiveness. It is this sin that the Pharisees commit in Matthew 12:24.

It seems to me similar to when people say, “Oh no, what Jesus meant by ‘Judge not’ is that we can’t judge another person’s salvation.” Well…that’s sort of true, but it’s certainly not to be found in the immediate context of Mt 7, which might make saying He “meant” something so specific as that seem like a rather dishonest twisting of the text. The immediate context shows He is saying we must stop judging by standards which we ourselves do not live up to (7:2: For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged…) since in that case we cannot possibly see the faults of others in a true light (7:3: And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?..). We should understand that, even if we wanted, we cannot judge what we don’t know about others; they may have grave flaws, but it is rare that we know what was in their heart, in their intentions, whether it was out of malice or weakness or ignorance or what. From this we may see that judging another’s salvation does constitute the logical end of such a saying after all, perhaps it is what is behind all human judgments. Sometimes it is obvious, by what the Church teaches about mortal sin, that “if so-and-so persists in doing that, there is no way they can avoid hell,” but how often can we say such a thing without by that very thing being reminded of our own lack of security? He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12).

Although this sin against the Holy Spirit is more obscure and I want to learn more about it, I think there is a similar situation here.

 

[NJada]

If we cannot recognize the works and words of the Holy Spirit, but attribute them to the evil one, how can we recognize our need to repent? How can men who call evil good, and good evil (Is 5:20) confess their sins? The Pharisees attributed Jesus’ miracles, worked by the Holy Spirit, to the evil spirit, because these were signs that they too needed forgiveness for their sins. (And He looked round on them in anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts, Mk 3:5). Because they did not want to repent and believe, they called the Holy Spirit an evil spirit. Entrance into the Faith begins with repentance, Baptism. There can be no faith without repentance and therefore no salvation. These miracles, signs of salvation, served as a kind of last chance for a people who did not believe His words but had to be shown (though you do not believe Me, believe the works, Jn 10:38). How then can they believe His words “I absolve you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; your sins are forgiven; go in peace”? How often do we hear rejections in the world about even the notion of sin? Or of faith without even the works of repentance?

Some of Jesus’ family sought to bind Him (Mk 3:21), thinking He was mad. But Jesus binds the strong man satan (3:22,27), being Himself the stronger Man (1:7). The possessed man becomes unbound, no longer with the accuser clinging to him, and being Jesus’ true family (anyone who does the will of God, 3:35), he is now free to cling to his Advocate. The name satan, the evil spirit, means “accuser/adversary” (as in court). The name Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, means “Advocate” (also as in court). Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are called “Advocate”, both by John (Jn 14:16; 1 Jn 2:1). If you have the Advocate, who will condemn you? If God if for us, who is against us? If you reject your Advocate, you have only an accuser, and how can you be forgiven? Romans 8:26,31-35:

Only, as before, the Spirit comes to the aid of our weakness; when we do not know what prayer to offer, to pray as we ought, the Spirit himself intercedes for us, with groans beyond all utterance. . . . Who can be our adversary, if God is on our side? He did not even spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all; and must not that gift be accompanied by the gift of all else? Who will come forward to accuse God’s elect, when God acquits us? Who will pass sentence against us, when Jesus Christ, who died, nay, has risen again, and sits at the right hand of God, is pleading for us? Who will separate us from the love of Christ?

It is a wicked and unfaithful generation that asks for a sign; the only sign that will be given to it is the sign of the prophet Jonas. (Mt 16:4). That will be the true sign of salvation–the final work of redemption–Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. As if His miracles among the Jews weren’t concessions enough, this sign is definitive.

 

[NJada]

If we go on sinning wilfully, when once the full knowledge of the truth has been granted to us, we have no further sacrifice for sin to look forward to, and, There was no escape for those others, who tried to excuse themselves when God uttered his warnings on earth; still less for us, if we turn away when he speaks from heaven (Heb 10:26; 12:25; cf 1 Jn 5:1-11). The Holy Spirit will come, and it will be for Him to prove the world wrong, about sin, and about rightness of heart, and about judging (Jn 15:8). That is the Holy Spirit’s first act toward us, to lead us to recognize our need to repent (Yet Our Lady without sin receives Him before everyone else, Lk 1, and then a second portion, Acts 2!), without which we cannot be saved, but can only persist in the blasphemy against Him. And when He did come on Pentecost, St. Peter spoke by the Him in all tongues (Acts 2:36-38):

Let it be known, then, beyond doubt, to all the house of Israel, that God has made him Master and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.
When they heard this, their consciences were stung; and they asked Peter and his fellow apostles, Brethren, what must we do?
Repent, Peter said to them, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to have your sins forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

From that time on St. Peter went about doing the same signs as Jesus, healing the lame, curing the sick and possessed on whom his shadow was cast, even raising the dead–showing that the Apostles of the Church have been sent as He was sent, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and can forgive sins (Jn 20:21-23). Whoever rejects the Church’s authority and power to administer the Sacraments would seem also to blaspheme the Holy Spirit–it is the Holy Spirit’s work, by appropriation, to sanctify, after all. So I think, to the Didache’s statement, the Church is the prophetic voice of God on earth–“the Holy Spirit…has spoken through the prophets”–and in her we obtain forgiveness of sins. And doesn’t literally every group, other than Catholics and Orthodox, reject the teaching of confessing our sins to a priest?–but that is the work of the Holy Spirit. He who despises you, despises Me; and he who despises Me, despises Him that sent Me (Lk 10:16). If we reject one of Holy Church’s prophetic teachings, we reject them all in principle, because we have regarded ourselves as the judge instead of God. So long as we reject her, we reject God’s forgiveness.

After Peter did all those things, St. Paul followed and did all those same things. The prophecy of Isaiah 6 is quoted by Jesus in all four Gospels, and a fifth time at the very end of Acts (28:24-28), Paul quotes it a final time, where only here it is attributed to the Holy Spirit, the blinding of eyes, stopping of ears, and hardening of hearts who would not believe the prophecy.

 

[Vbwc]

Have to admit, I’d been worrying about this for a while. Especially this week when it came into my mind again. I feared (although I didn’t really recognize it at the time last year because I was an emotional wreck) that I had committed it.

Last year i came across a sedaventalist website (anti-post-Vatican II church) that said that the modern church was wrong (well actually worse than that, I don’t want to get explicit here; I remembered it several times and was even wanting to go to a Latin rite church instead for a while, even though I kept going to regular Sunday masses) and another such site said bad things about all the most recent deceased popes, the luminous mysteries of the Rosary, and Chaplet of the Divine Mercy. I stopped praying the Luminous mysteries for quite a while (almost a year), but I had doubts about what it said about the popes and although rocked for a day or two, I couldn’t believe it at all what it said about the Chaplet of the Divine Mercy.

But I guess my question is, even though i did not think of the idea of it being Blasphemy of the holy Ghost at the time, am I actually guilty of it thanks to the thoughts? or was i just led astray, due to vulnerability and jangling nerves?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Anytime you ask did ask “did the Church change X teaching”? The answer is no (though development of doctrine is a thing)