Incredibly Difficult Passage to Explain for Catholics

[jinc1019]

I can certainly understand how all this can be confusing. I am about to leave for a 4-hour drive so I hope my following statements will prove to be helpful, as it will be quite awhile before I can do any follow-up commentary.

The Holy Spirit, in his love and mercy, makes himself available to people in a variety of ways. These ways can be divided into two categories: sacramental and non-sacramental. When we talk about miracles, the yearning of people to know God (and seek baptism), and many experiences in our daily prayer life, we are describing what the Holy Spirit does in a non-sacramental capacity (and I’m speaking generally here).

The work of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, however, provides a special grace, “sacramental grace”. This grace is “fine tuned” to do what the sacrament is designed to do. For example, the “ordinary means” that God absolves us from mortal sin is the Sacrament of Reconciliation. God can (and does) absolve us from mortal sin through what is called “perfect contrition”, but this is not sacramental absolution, but rather an “extraordinary means” for dealing with post-baptismal sin (and here, “extraordinary” simply means, “outside the norm”, not “incredibly good”). The benefit of going to confession over relying on perfect contrition is that it is hard for us to gauge whether or not we truly have perfect contrition to begin with. But in order to receive absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we simply have to be at least somewhat sorry for our sins, properly confess them, have a firm purpose of amendment and do our penance. Objectively speaking, I can know whether or not I made what is called a “good confession”, but I usually cannot know if I have perfect contrition. But perfect contrition, fortunately, is not a requirement for making a good confession in the context of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (all we need is “some” contrition, not “perfect” contrition).

I know that this thread is focusing on Confirmation, so the only reason why I brought up Confession is because I think it helps to understand the difference between sacramental grace and non-sacramental grace. We have certain assurances with the sacraments.

As I stated earlier, each sacrament is regulated by “matter” (the material utilized) and “form” (the words spoken). These are the parameters for a sacrament to be valid. For example, the matter for baptism is water, not sand, so if a person goes to get baptized and the minister pours sand over his head instead of water, it is not a valid baptism. It could be argued that the person received “baptism by desire” (i.e., an extraordinary means of obtaining God’s grace) but not a valid sacramental baptism (i.e., an ordinary means). Generally speaking, when we speak of “extraordinary means” we are often theorizing how God does things, but we have the assurance of God’s revelation concerning his “ordinary means.”

The Church’s teachings concerning the matter and form of a sacrament are doctrinal, and therefore we believe that such information is part of God’s revelation. The matter and form for the sacraments includes designating the “ordinary” minister for each one. This is the person empowered by God to administer the sacrament in question. A baptism does not require a member of the clergy for the purposes of sacramental validity. But Confirmation requires a bishop or (in certain circumstances) a priest. This is what has been known and understood within the Church since the beginning, and if someone wonders why this is a rule, the simplest answer is because it is the way God revealed it to us. It is considered part of the apostolic ministry (to which deacons are able to participate in but only to a certain degree).

The sacrament of baptism is the ordinary means by which God initially absolves us of sin and confers upon us the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is the ordinary means by which God strengths (or “confirms”) these gifts that we previously received in baptism. God can absolve, confer gifts and strengthen these gifts in extraordinary means as well, but when such actions are done in the ordinary, sacramental capacity, they are to involve those properly designated as the ministers, because these ministers are empowered by God to do so.

Again, I do appreciate these comments. I will pray on them and consider them very carefully. I appreciate everything you have written and everything everyone else has written as well. I am thankful people are willing to devote their time to answering my questions.

 

[StevieD]

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

Absolutely !

 

[tafan]

The reason I am having trouble with it is because the Church teaches it is infallible because of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is given to numerous people who the Church says cannot claim infallibility…I agree with your point about authority and infallibility, as I mentioned above.

Ok, maybe I am starting to understand your difficulty. The Holy Spiit is received (is given) by everyone at Baptism and Confirmation. That would certainly constitute numerous people. Certainly we cannot all claim infallibility (or even authority). It seems you are having a difficult time accepting that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not the same for all?

I would point you to 1 Corithians Chapter 12:

Now concerning spiritual things, my brethren, I would not have you ignorant. You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led. Wherefore, I give you to understand that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, says Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say The Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit. **And there are diversities of ministries but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who works all in all. And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. ** To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: To another, faith in the same spirit: to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit: To another the working of miracles: to another, prophecy: to another, the discerning of spirits: to another, diverse kinds of tongues: to another, interpretation of speeches. But all these things, one and the same Spirit works, dividing to every one according as he will.

Boldness added

 

[pablope]

The reason I am having trouble with it is because the Church teaches it is infallible because of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is given to numerous people who the Church says cannot claim infallibility…I agree with your point about authority and infallibility, as I mentioned above.

After reading the thread…just some thoughts for you to ponder…

The miracles performed are the miracles of God…acting through His chosen agents…in this case, the deacons. Throughout the OT also, you can see miracles performed…example are the 10 plagues through Moses.

The miracles happened through God’s will, not because the deacons willed them…God can act through anyone He wishes, and whenever He wishes.

On the Holy Spirit, yes, we are all given the HS…but the HS does not give each of us the same capabilities…whatever capabilities we are granted, it is through the will of God.

 

[kepha1]

The Church is an organized visible fellowship. Because it is divine institution and dynamism, the Holy Spirit dwells in it, keeping it alive, keeping it true, and making it grow. The Spirit is the source of the life of the Church, but that life is the life of a body.

The body is made up of many members who are distinguished one from the other by functions for which they have a fixed structure. In the Body, the bishops have the function of teaching and guiding, and this task they perform through the power of the Spirit who transfuses the whole Body, making each member effective in his function.

The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.

 

[TimothyH]

Again, I do appreciate these comments. I will pray on them and consider them very carefully. I appreciate everything you have written and everything everyone else has written as well. I am thankful people are willing to devote their time to answering my questions.

I’ll add the following.

It may help here to understand what the sacrament of confirmation is and therefor why Peter and John went to Samaria to administer the sacrament of confirmation even though the Samaritans had already been baptized.

Personally, I think the passage is impossible to explain outside of the Catholic Sacramental system because the sacrament of confirmation is our personal participation in Pentacost.

Before Petacost, the disciples locked themselves in an upper room, where they cowered in fear and prayed. After Pentacost however, Peter is able to stand up and proclaim the word of God boldly, without fear, and Peter’s words were effective to the point where 3000 people join the disciples in one day.

Peter goes on to preach in the temple. He and John walk right into the front door of the headquarters of the Chief Priests and Elders who had Jesus Crucified fifty days earlier and begins preaching Jesus. Peter even preaches before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council who had condmned Jesus to death, and even here Peter is not afraid but preaches Jesus boldly.

Stephen preaches Jesus to the Sanhedrin as well, and is not even afraid to die.

That is the power of Pentacost, and confirmation is our personal participation in Pentacost, where we are given the power to proclaim Jesus boldly, without fear, even without fear of death.

So one can be baptized but still not have the gift of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the word of God boldly. And this is why Peter and John go to Samaria, to give this “Gift of the Holy Spirit” to the Samaritans, who had only been baptized.

-Tim-

 

[LilyM]

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.

Many many saints who were not EVEN deacons but were instead nuns, unordained brothers and laypersons were indeed given the power to do signs and miracles. Why not Stephen and Philip then?

 

[brb3]

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 can men given miraculous powers not have the power to do what a common priest can do today?

Well, Phillip was baptizing those converts, in the name of Jesus … as Christ commanded in the Great Commission charge to the 11 remaining Apostles, just before His ascension.

Perhaps Phillip was not laying hands on the Baptized, so as to confirm them in the H.S. We know Apollos was also poorly catechised, until he and associates were fully instructed and Confirmed. So, the two Apostles came to teach Phillip about necessity of Confirmation ! Clearly, many in today’s Protestant world are being confirmed in the H.S. … by the laying on of hands of Protestant pastors & even the laity. So, I wouldn’t propose, [as some here have], that only Catholic priests / bishops can Confirm a baptized believer in the H.S.

For Cradle Catholics, Confirmation by the clergy is normative. But, for the MILLIONS of faithful, reborn Protestants living today,… by some non-Catholic, non-normative, non-Sacramental means ----- Christ is Confirming the Protestant baptized with his H.S. I think Catholics intuitive know/believe this to be the fact. We believe the Catholic Church’s doctrine on Confirmation is best supported by scripture, but our doctrines also allow for Christ to grant graces & the H.S. to the TRUE SEEKERS, by non-normative means.

 

[jinc1019]

Many many saints who were not EVEN deacons but were instead nuns, unordained brothers and laypersons were indeed given the power to do signs and miracles. Why not Stephen and Philip then?

It’s not that they could do miracles…as was stated earlier, the confusion comes from the idea that they were doing it by the Holy Spirit, which is a term used to also explain why the Church has authority and to explain many other things as well, even though the term is applied across a wide spectrum of events…I think it has been made pretty clear ealier on. I understand what people think…I am clearly confused about this and having trouble buying the argument that the Church makes on this. I have trouble believing the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church from making an error but the Holy Spirit, even when present for others, does not afford them the same luxury. The Church says this is based on the status of the Church office, I think that is a very legalistic way to look at it and I am having trouble buying it. But all of this has been said before by both sides.

 

[jinc1019]

Ok, maybe I am starting to understand your difficulty. The Holy Spiit is received (is given) by everyone at Baptism and Confirmation. That would certainly constitute numerous people. Certainly we cannot all claim infallibility (or even authority). It seems you are having a difficult time accepting that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not the same for all?

I would point you to 1 Corithians Chapter 12:

Boldness added

Excellent quote…basically what I was looking for. Thank you very much.

 

[brb3]

having trouble buying the argument that the Church makes on this. I have trouble believing the Holy Spirit is protecting the Church from making an error but the Holy Spirit, even when present for others, does not afford them the same luxury. The Church says this is based on the status of the Church office, I think that is a very legalistic way to look at it and I am having trouble buying it.

Except we know that POSSESSION is 9/10th of the law. The Universal ‘Catholic’ Church had the PARAMOUNT status for first 1500 years of Christianity. They were first & foremost, and still remain the ONLY church that can trace its roots all the way back to Peter, via its governance/papacy. History is very clear about this FACT !

Regarding legalism … Christ gave us the Big Ten, and said He came not to abolish it, but to fulfill. Christ also taught he wanted ONE, Unified Church. Now, … what other denomination fits scripture & history as faithfully as the RCC ?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

You are correct

Haydock commentary on Acts 6:6:

And they, that is, the apostles, laid, or imposed hands upon them. These deacons, therefore, were designed and ordained for a sacred ministry, and not only to manage the common stock, and temporals of the faithful. This is proved, 1. By the qualifications required in such men, who were to be full of the Holy Ghost. 2. This is evident from their ecclesiastical functions mentioned in this book of the Acts, and in the epistles of S. Paul, and by the ancient Fathers. S. Stephen and S. Philip immediately preached the gospel, as we find in this, and the 8th chapter; they baptized those that were converted. In the first ages they assisted the bishops and priests at their divine office, and distributed the sacred chalice, or cup of the holy Eucharist. They succeeded as it were, the Levites of the old law. And in the chief Churches, the deacons, or the archdeacons in the first ages, had the chief administration of the ecclesiastical revenues, as we read of S. Laurence, at Rome. Wi. — Imposed hands upon them. Notwithstanding the opinions of some, that these deacons were only the dispensers of corporal food, and therefore very different from the ministers of the altar, who now bear that name, it must nevertheless be observed, that the most ancient Fathers, SS. Justin, Irenæus, &c. have acknowledged in them the two-fold character, and always style them the ministers of the mysteries of God. At the commencement of Christianity, the faithful generally received the holy Eucharist after a repast, which they took together, in imitation of our Saviour, who instituted the Sacrament after supper. Now the deacons, who presided over the first tables, after having distributed the corporeal food to the assembly, ministered also the food of life, which they received from the hand of the bishop. Thus were they ministers of both the common and sacred tables. Afterwards, they had assistants called sub-deacons, and as among the Gentile converts, there did not exist that community of goods, as at Jerusalem, their chief employment became to serve the bishop in the oblation of the holy sacrifice. Calmet.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As I mentioned earlier, I think my primary problem is understanding how the Holy Spirit functions in so many different ways. I always felt the Holy Spirit=authority since the Church claims its authority based on the idea that the Holy Spirit is protecting them. But according to what is being said here, the Holy Spirit is not why the Church has authority and has nothing to do with authority…which is confusing to me…especially because I thought this was the basis for apostolic succession.

No, I think you’re right: the acts of the Holy Spirit are relevant for the authority of the Church. But the Holy Spirit does a lot of different things for us. He is, after all, a Person who shares the one divine nature, and thus is God Himself. His actions are many.

I’d think of Him less as a kind of “source of authority,” though, and more of a Person, like Jesus, or like the Father.