Incredibly Difficult Passage to Explain for Catholics

[jinc1019]

In my opinion, this series of events is incredibly difficult to explain…In fact, I don’t know if it really can be explained from the Catholic perspective. Any ideas on how it could be explained would be very helpful.

In Acts 8, the early Church is persecuted and all except the apostles are forced to scatter across Judea and Samaria. One of those who is forced to scatter, who had been blessed with the Holy Spirit by the apostles themselves was Philip. We know Philip was apart of the Church because he was able to do many miracles, was preaching the word of God, and was having a great deal of success doing so. However, despite his success, the Holy Spirit was NOT coming down to the people of Samaria. Then this happened:

Acts 8:14: “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”

What I find nearly impossible to explain about this passage from a Catholic perspective is that, if Philip was apart of the Church, clearly was able to heal and do other miracles, then why is it that the Holy Spirit only came down when Peter and John showed up? Catholic theology is primarily based, among other things of course, on the idea that through apostolic succession, the powers of the apostles is passed down. Here, however, you have an apostolic power passed down to Philip who is then unable to pass it down to anyone in Samaria…so the apostles send Peter and John. Why? Why wasn’ Philip successful in bringing about the Holy Spirit?

Note also, it states that in the above passage that the people of Samaria prior to Peter and John arriving “had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” indicating that this act alone was not enough to bring about the Holy Spirit. But, at Pentecost, in Acts 2, you see Peter saying this in response to the crowd asking him what they should do: "Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[EricFilmer]

Acts 8:14 describes the sacrament of confirmation. Despite his holiness and accomplishments, Philip was a deacon (his ordination as such is described in Acts 6:1-6) and therefore could not be the minister of confirmation. The ordinary minister required for this sacrament is a bishop, which Peter and John were. Therefore, this is simply a case of what one’s ecclesiastical office allows one to do. As a side note, priests today are allowed to confirm under certain conditions, such as fully initiating converts into the Catholic Faith.

 

[Bookcat]

Acts 8:14 describes the sacrament of confirmation. Despite his holiness and accomplishments, Philip was a deacon (his ordination as such is described in Acts 6:1-6) and therefore could not be the minister of confirmation. The ordinary minister required for this sacrament is a bishop, which Peter and John were. Therefore, this is simply a case of what’s ecclesiastical office allows one to do.

Peter and John were Apostles …Philip was a deacon.

It is not that baptism did not involve the coming of the Holy Spirit – it does.

But one can say the language here is referring to the laying on of hands by the Apostles (whom the Bishops later succeed) – to the particular coming of the Holy Spirit in the west we call Confirmation now.

 

[Usagi]

Yup, that’s actually a very “Catholic” text. It’s an illustration of confirmation as a distinct sacrament from baptism, and an example of a power that bishops have and deacons lack.

Usagi

 

[EricFilmer]

Peter and John were Apostles …Philip was a deacon.

It is not that baptism did not involve the coming of the Holy Spirit – it does.

But one can say the language here is referring to the laying on of hands by the Apostles (whom the Bishops later succeed) – to the particular coming of the Holy Spirit in the west we call Confirmation now.

Correct. In light of your post maybe it would be good for me to clarify my initial post for the sake of others reading this. In Post #2, basically I was referring to 1st Century equivalents. Technically speaking, Peter and John were apostles and bishops are their apostolic successors, but the point is that there are things that an apostle/bishop is empowered to do that a deacon is not. Along these lines, Acts 8:14 is describing the 1st Century phenomenon of what eventually would be called the Sacrament of Confirmation. As Bookcat mentioned, Acts 8 does not indicate that Philip’s ministry did not allow for the Holy Spirit to enter people’s lives, because it did (after all, baptism does that). So the purpose of bringing Peter and John was to “confirm” (i.e., “strengthen”) the gifts of the Holy Spirit the people had received in baptism.

 

[jinc1019]

With all due respect, I am not sure this makes any sense. If Philip is a deacon who is not to engage in the prayer and ministry, as it says in Acts 6, why is he going around Samaria making miracles, baptizing, and preaching the word of God?

 

[1ke]

If Philip is a deacon who is not to engage in the prayer and ministry, as it says in Acts 6

Wow. Seriously?

It says **no such thing **in Acts 6. In fact, it says the opposite. It record Stephen “filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people” immediately after he is ordained a deacon. Deacons quickly took on more and more ministry in the early Church.

You are reading something into Acts 6 that simply **isn’t **there.

 

[jinc1019]

Additionally, I don’t buy your argument because all those being “confirmed,” according to your statements, are being given the power of the Holy Spirit. If that is true, then the Holy Spirit is being given to the laity here…which seems to conflict with Catholic teaching also.

 

[1ke]

Additionally, I don’t buy your argument because all those being “confirmed,” according to your statements, are being given the power of the Holy Spirit. If that is true, then the Holy Spirit is being given to the laity here…which seems to conflict with Catholic teaching also.

Are you sure you are a Catholic?

Yes, it is referring to Confirmation.

 

[jinc1019]

Wow. Seriously?

It says no such thing in Acts 6. In fact, it says the opposite. It record Stephen “filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people” immediately after he is ordained a deacon.

Acts 6: "So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

The twelve give these other responsibilities over to those listed so they don’t have to do them…so the apostles can engage in the ministry and the deacons can handle these other issues.

 

[jinc1019]

Are you sure you are a Catholic?

Yes, it is referring to Confirmation.

Last I checked, someone being confirmed doesn’t receive the power to make miracles.

 

[1ke]

Acts 6: "So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

The twelve give these other responsibilities over to those listed so they don’t have to do them…so the apostles can engage in the ministry and the deacons can handle these other issues.

And then immediately following, Stephen is out preaching and doing signs and wonders.

Again, deacons were originally ordained to help with certain ministries and nowhere does it say they **cannot **do other ministries. And, then it is recorded that they do in fact do other ministries.

You are WAY off base. I don’t understand why you are approaching Scripture outside the Church’s constant teaching. That is not a Catholic way of doing things.

 

[jinc1019]

My point is, I don’t think Stephen and Philip are just deacons in the modern sense, if they were, they wouldn’t be given the power to do all of these miracles and signs.

 

[1ke]

Last I checked, someone being confirmed doesn’t receive the power to make miracles.

Huh?

 

[1ke]

My point is, I don’t think Stephen and Philip are just deacons in the modern sense, if they were, they wouldn’t be given the power to do all of these miracles and signs.

That is not what the Church teaches.

That is your opinion.

How bizarre.

 

[jinc1019]

I do not believe I am way off base here…This doesn’t make sense. You say that Philip and Stephen are just deacons and don’t have the power to do something as simple as confirmation, something the average priest can do today, but Philip and Stephen can actually make miracles and are tasked with going out into foreign lands and converting Jews? How does that make any sense? How can men given miraculous powers not have the power to do what a common priest can do today?

 

[jinc1019]

I am trying to get at what the Church is teaching! I don’t know what it is. You keep saying “that’s not what the Church teaches.” What does the Church teach on this? That deacons in the early Church were significantly more powerful than deacons today? That priests today have more authority than Philip and Stephen, both of whom could commit miracles?

 

[tafan]

My point is, I don’t think Stephen and Philip are just deacons in the modern sense, if they were, they wouldn’t be given the power to do all of these miracles and signs.

Why not? None of the Holy Orders confers the power to do miracles (well, excepting the Eucharistic of course) and signs. These are given to individuals by God based on His criteria (unknown to us). There is no teaching in the Church that a deacon, or even a lay person for that matter, could not be given these powers by God.

 

[tafan]

I am trying to get at what the Church is teaching! I don’t know what it is. You keep saying “that’s not what the Church teaches.” What does the Church teach on this? That deacons in the early Church were significantly more powerful than deacons today? That priests today have more authority than Philip and Stephen, both of whom could commit miracles?

Deacons in the early Church had pretty much the same responsibilities and authority given by the Church as today. If individual deacons were given more powers by God, that was not necessarily related to them being a Deacon. Yes, from an ecclesiastical viewpoint, priests today have more authority than Philip or Stephen, there is no doubt about this. But that does not seem to bear on the matter at hand.
If anything, the passages you site, conform very well with the Church’s present day hierarchical structure and sacramental structure. Phillip could preach in Samaria, he could baptize in Samaria. All of these things deacons can do today. But Peter and John had to come and confirm the people who had converted; just as today a Bishop is the ordinary minister of confirmation.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[1ke]

Why not? None of the Holy Orders confers the power to do miracles (well, excepting the Eucharistic of course) and signs. These are given to individuals by God based on His criteria (unknown to us). There is no teaching in the Church that a deacon, or even a lay person for that matter, could not be given these powers by God.

Right.

The disciples went out while Jesus was still alive and performed miracles. They had not been ordained nor received any sacraments at that time.

Miracles are a gift, a charism.