Matthew 12:31 - Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

[jerome_ky]

I’ve seen the question asked a number of times of the apologists on here, “What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?” and the answer is always along the lines that it is an obstinate refusal to accept forgiveness. That answer does not seem to fit into the context of the situation Jesus is addressing in Matthew 12. The Pharisees have accused Him of driving out devils by the prince of the devils. Jesus first describes how inconsistent that would be, satan driving out satan, and then He says:

“But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house. He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known. O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”

Obstinate refusal to be forgiven doesn’t fit Jesus’ words.It reduces the crime to a tautological “if you refuse to be forgiven, you won’t be forgiven.” It references neither the Holy Spirit nor the devil. It may be an element or end result but it doesn’t explain what the blasphemy is.

 

[Nita]

It is the Holy Spirit who helps us to recognize our sins and seek forgiveness.
(cf. John 16:8 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment)

I’ve understood the Mt 12:31 as one who refuses to admit a sin. When the Holy Spirit, works in him to see a particular act of his as sinful, he refuses to recognize it as such – rationalizes it away, or even outright rejects those inspirations as having any value or truth. Thus that person would not repent and seek the forgiveness available to him.

In that case, it’s not stubborn refusal to accept forgiveness, but stubborn refusal to admit one’s sins; a stubborn rejection of the Holy Spirit working in him.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Page 175 of ‘Radio Replies: Volume 1’ (with Imprimatur):

Question: ‘Can a priest forgive blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which Christ says shall not be forgiven in this world or the next?’

Answer: “There is no sin too great to be forgiven provided one sincerely repents of it. Christ really referred to evil dispositions of soul which are so hardened that one will lack the will to repent. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not blasphemy as commonly understood, but a determined resistance to the very grace of the Holy Spirit which is meant to save us. Thus the Pharisees who saw the miracles of Christ could not deny them to be miracles; yet rather than yield to the grace being offered them, they said that Christ wrought them with the help of the Devil and not by God. A man who rejects the very means God adopts to convert him is little likely to make use of other graces offered by God, and Our Lord warns us very strongly to beware of sinning against the light, since it seldom ends in repentance. Yet even such a man with the help of grace could repent of his bad dispositions and thus be converted and forgiven. Any unforgivableness, therefore, is on account of a man’s bad dispositions, not on account of the nature [gravity] of the sin. There is no absolutely unforgivable sin such as cannot be forgiven even though a man repents.”

“God promised His mercy to all, and granted to His priests the license of forgiving sins without any exception.”
– St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397)

God the Father also allegedly spoke about this sin to St. Hildegard von Bingen, saying that those who "impenitently blaspheme… so stifle the understanding of their hearts that they cannot aspire upwards… But if any of these is led by penitence and truly seeks Me, he shall find Me, for I reject no one who comes to Me with a sincere heart.”

Whatever our interpretation, we must be consistent with Church teaching. “Christ promised to His Church and transmitted to His Church the power to forgive sins without limitation. The expressions quodcumque solveris (Mt. 16, 19), quaecumque solveritis (Mt. 18, 18), quorum remiseritis peccata (John 20, 23) show that the power in question is conceived to be as inclusive and as general as possible.” (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’)

God bless.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Obstinate refusal to be forgiven doesn’t fit Jesus’ words.It reduces the crime to a tautological “if you refuse to be forgiven, you won’t be forgiven.” It references neither the Holy Spirit nor the devil. It may be an element or end result but it doesn’t explain what the blasphemy is.

From the Original Douay-Rheims Commentary (but substituting Pharisees for Jewes in the original and correcting some spellings). “The Pharisees in their words sinned against the Son of Man when they reprehended those things which he did as a man, to wit: calling him therefore a glutton, a great drinker of wine, a friend of the Publicans and taking offense because he kept company with sinners, broke the Sabbath, and such like. And this sin might more easily be forgiven them because they judged of him as they would have done of any other man: but they sinned and blasphemed against the Holy Ghost (called here the finger of God whereby he wrought miracles), when of malice they attributed the evident works of God in casting out devils to the devil himself.” Rheims New Testament, Annotations on Matthew XII, p.34.

I think this is basically correct (minus a bit of unfortunate anti-Semitism in the original) and I can offer another gloss from C.S. Lewis for further clarification. At the end of his book “The Last Battle” there is a sequence where Aslan (the Christ figure in his books if you haven’t read them) seems to be attempting to help some Black Dwarves. But every miracle he works for them they perceive as something terribly mundane (he provides a feast, they see and taste only turnips and spoiled food). They can not be redeemed by Christ because, of their own free will, they refuse to let themselves be redeemed. Their souls so permeated with their unbelief and self-love that in the hereafter they will look at their feet rather than at Christ standing before them.

Aside, the most interesting part of your quote from Matthew to me is what Gregory the Great noted (see Aquinas Catena Aurea on Matthew): from this section it is clear that there are sins that are forgiven in this life and some sins that are forgiven in the next (and of course one sin forgiven in neither).

 

[petra22]

From the Original Douay-Rheims Commentary (but substituting Pharisees for Jewes in the original and correcting some spellings). “The Pharisees in their words sinned against the Son of Man when they reprehended those things which he did as a man, to wit: calling him therefore a glutton, a great drinker of wine, a friend of the Publicans and taking offense because he kept company with sinners, broke the Sabbath, and such like. And this sin might more easily be forgiven them because they judged of him as they would have done of any other man: but they sinned and blasphemed against the Holy Ghost (called here the finger of God whereby he wrought miracles), when of malice they attributed the evident works of God in casting out devils to the devil himself.” Rheims New Testament, Annotations on Matthew XII, p.34.

I think this is basically correct (minus a bit of unfortunate anti-Semitism in the original) and I can offer another gloss from C.S. Lewis for further clarification. At the end of his book “The Last Battle” there is a sequence where Aslan (the Christ figure in his books if you haven’t read them) seems to be attempting to help some Black Dwarves. But every miracle he works for them they perceive as something terribly mundane (he provides a feast, they see and taste only turnips and spoiled food). They can not be redeemed by Christ because, of their own free will, they refuse to let themselves be redeemed. Their souls so permeated with their unbelief and self-love that in the hereafter they will look at their feet rather than at Christ standing before them.

Aside, the most interesting part of your quote from Matthew to me is what Gregory the Great noted (see Aquinas Catena Aurea on Matthew): from this section it is clear that there are sins that are forgiven in this life and some sins that are forgiven in the next (and of course one sin forgiven in neither).

Interesting. I’ve always been interested it this topic…

 

[Achilles6129]

I’ve seen the question asked a number of times of the apologists on here, “What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?” and the answer is always along the lines that it is an obstinate refusal to accept forgiveness. That answer does not seem to fit into the context of the situation Jesus is addressing in Matthew 12. The Pharisees have accused Him of driving out devils by the prince of the devils. Jesus first describes how inconsistent that would be, satan driving out satan, and then He says:

“But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house. He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known. O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”

Obstinate refusal to be forgiven doesn’t fit Jesus’ words.It reduces the crime to a tautological “if you refuse to be forgiven, you won’t be forgiven.” It references neither the Holy Spirit nor the devil. It may be an element or end result but it doesn’t explain what the blasphemy is.

You are correct, it does not fit into the context at all. Nor does it fit into the name of the crime itself. In short, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is exactly what it sounds like: blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit is apparently to revile or slander the Holy Spirit. One way to do this is to call the Holy Spirit “Satan,” which is why Christ brought it up in that context.

I think the crime is directly related to blasphemy of the name of YHWH, shown in passages such as Lev. 24.

 

[jerome_ky]

From the Original Douay-Rheims Commentary (but substituting Pharisees for Jewes in the original and correcting some spellings). “The Pharisees in their words sinned against the Son of Man when they reprehended those things which he did as a man, to wit: calling him therefore a glutton, a great drinker of wine, a friend of the Publicans and taking offense because he kept company with sinners, broke the Sabbath, and such like. And this sin might more easily be forgiven them because they judged of him as they would have done of any other man: but they sinned and blasphemed against the Holy Ghost (called here the finger of God whereby he wrought miracles), when of malice they attributed the evident works of God in casting out devils to the devil himself.” Rheims New Testament, Annotations on Matthew XII, p.34.
<>
Aside, the most interesting part of your quote from Matthew to me is what Gregory the Great noted (see Aquinas Catena Aurea on Matthew): from this section it is clear that there are sins that are forgiven in this life and some sins that are forgiven in the next (and of course one sin forgiven in neither).

That is exactly what I was looking for, and I will look for that commentary. Thank you. That explanation keeps within the context of the words of Jesus in this episode of His ministry. Before I saw your response, I was going to reference the section where Jesus highlights recognizing a tree by its fruits. A good tree bears good fruit, and an evil tree bears evil fruit. If we see devils being driven out, that is “good fruit” and we should recognize that as the work of the Holy Spirit and not of the devil. So, the answer to the question, “What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?” is seeing the work of the Holy Spirit and calling it the work of the devil.

(Your aside about there being sins forgiven in this life and other forgiven in the next seems to point to Purgatory, which is also very interesting.)

So to put some things together- The idea that someone who is recalcitrant in sin or unwilling to receive forgiveness, cannot be forgiven, is of course valid, it’s even self-evident. But, that must be seen as a result of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because that is what Jesus tells us is the unforgivable sin. If the Church can forgive any sin that’s confessed and repented of, then those sins that will be unforgiven will be those that spring from this blasphemy, which is seeing the holy and calling it unholy. This is a scary thought when we consider that the Catholic Church is the True Church established by Christ, because there are so many people who not only don’t recognize it but even call it evil. One of the Sacraments is Reconciliation, which is of course the forgiveness of sins. If you aren’t Catholic and don’t recognize the Church, how do you confess to a validly ordained priest, express contrition and do penance? That’s difficult to say to non-Catholics, and that’s why answering these questions correctly is so important. Protestants read the same New Testament as we do (parsing the KJV notwithstanding) and they do not have any clue about the parts that point to the Catholic Church. This is one that does and is a good evangelizing point. (In my opinion, which counts for so much because it’s on the internet.)

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

That is exactly what I was looking for, and I will look for that commentary.

Original Rheims New Testament commentary is at the end of that chapter of Matthew. Here is an archive.org pdf of the entire bible. There are better scans of the individual volumes but this one is indexed, so easier to find things.

archive.org/details/DouayRheimsBibleOriginal

 

[littlestsouls2]

The blasphemers in question had leveled similar accusations against Our Lord on a former occasion. Their sin, therefore, was neither one of passion or blindness, but malice. If someone thinks their medicine is poisoned, they are unlikely to take it. Yet the medicine remains efficacious. If they respond to the grace of repentance, they will be saved. The fear is that they will reject this grace.

If a sinner repents, it is by the grace of God alone. “‘If anyone shall assert that without the previous inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and his assistance, man can believe, hope, love or repent, as he ought, in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be anathema.”

We should therefore encourage all sinners (even blasphemers of God’s goodness) to trust in the infinite mercy of God. If He gives us the light to recognise His goodness, and the strength to turn from sin, we are absolutely assured of pardon.

Fr. Haydock has written an excellent commentary on this topic. It is worth reading his comments on the relevant Scriptures. Here I will include only part of one of his comments:

[He says that] “… in what manner soever we expound this place, it is an undoubted point of Christian faith, that there is no sin which our merciful God is not ready to pardon; no sin, for the remission of which, God hath not left a power in his Church, as it is clearly proved by those words, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, &c. St. Chrysostom therefore expounds these words, shall not be forgiven them, to imply no more, than shall scarcely, or seldom be forgiven; that is, it is very hard for such sinners to return to God, by a true and sincere repentance and conversion; so that this sentence is like to that (Matthew xix. 26.) where Christ seems to call it an impossible thing for a rich man to be saved. In the same place St. Chrysostom tells us, that some of those who had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, repented, and had their sins forgiven them.”

Cornelius a Lapide has also written an excellent commentary:

“Shall not be forgiven: Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God (1 Tim. i. 13).”

Pax Domini!

 

[ericc]

I’ve seen the question asked a number of times of the apologists on here, “What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?” and the answer is always along the lines that it is an obstinate refusal to accept forgiveness. That answer does not seem to fit into the context of the situation Jesus is addressing in Matthew 12. The Pharisees have accused Him of driving out devils by the prince of the devils. Jesus first describes how inconsistent that would be, satan driving out satan, and then He says:

“But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house. He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known. O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”

Obstinate refusal to be forgiven doesn’t fit Jesus’ words.It reduces the crime to a tautological “if you refuse to be forgiven, you won’t be forgiven.” It references neither the Holy Spirit nor the devil. It may be an element or end result but it doesn’t explain what the blasphemy is.

I am also in the same camp. Some how the answer just doesn’t seem to flow in the context. Obviously, if one refuses to be forgiven, he is not forgiven. One can not/shouldn’t? be saved against their free will. There was no added knowledge from repeating the mantra. (I don’t know how to word it, but sounds like if I didn’t cross the road, I didn’t cross the road).

Frank Sheed in explaining the Trinity says the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle of love” and quotes the Council of Florence defining the HS is from the Father and Son eternally., and has His essence and subsistence from the Father and Son together, and proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one single spiration". Later on he said this: The Father generates the Son, the Father and the Son spirate (breathe ) the Holy Spirit.

Hence, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to curse the Love between Father and Son. Is it because anyone who tries to curse and destroy Love, is beyond the power of Love to forgive, because you need Love to forgive? Or is it because the person cursing the love between Father and Son require the forgiveness of both parties jointly and not by the individual Persons individually? Or is it the Love between Father and Son is so sacred that anyone who tries to destroy their love for each other is unforgivable? And I am not sure why blasphemy was singled out. So it looks like a sin against the HS can still be forgiven but just not blasphemy. Just wondering…Yeah, obstinate refusal to be forgiven seems a glib answer, but still short of something.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Yeah, obstinate refusal to be forgiven seems a glib answer, but still short of something.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this does not seem quite right to me: it’s not a sin against the Love between Father and Son, expressed as the Holy Spirit, it’s a sin against the Love between God (as the Trinity) and Man, expressed through the Holy Spirit.

it’s not a sin that just affects the sinner. Look at how the sin plays out today - where we have evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by denying that God’s miracles are miracles. Their blasphemies have led others to stray from the Truth; as a result of these evangelical atheists we have children being born today into what were once overwhelmingly Christian Countries who have never been baptized. Without baptism they have no protection against Satan and are subject to original sin.

Contrast this blasphemy against the Spirit with something like the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy is a blasphemy against Christ, denying the fullness of Our Lord’s divinity and oneness with the Father, but does not, like Dawkins’ blasphemy, deny all of God’s miracles and while it led many Christians away from the Full Truth, they still baptized their children and recognized (most of) God’s miracles.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that perhaps those Arian Heretics of the early Church fall under those whose sins can be (emphasis on “can” not “will” - subject to God’s mercy which is not something I am really competent to write about) forgiven in the next life: after suitable penance in Purgatory. Whereas it seems to me that Dawkins and his ilk will not be forgiven, despite any good works they do in this life, there is no good work they can do that can in anyway ameliorate their ongoing sin of leading others to their death of the soul.

 

[Mystrx]

Page 175 of ‘Radio Replies: Volume 1’ (with Imprimatur):

Question: ‘Can a priest forgive blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which Christ says shall not be forgiven in this world or the next?’

Answer: “There is no sin too great to be forgiven provided one sincerely repents of it. Christ really referred to evil dispositions of soul which are so hardened that one will lack the will to repent. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not blasphemy as commonly understood, but a determined resistance to the very grace of the Holy Spirit which is meant to save us. Thus the Pharisees who saw the miracles of Christ could not deny them to be miracles; yet rather than yield to the grace being offered them, they said that Christ wrought them with the help of the Devil and not by God. A man who rejects the very means God adopts to convert him is little likely to make use of other graces offered by God, and Our Lord warns us very strongly to beware of sinning against the light, since it seldom ends in repentance. Yet even such a man with the help of grace could repent of his bad dispositions and thus be converted and forgiven. Any unforgivableness, therefore, is on account of a man’s bad dispositions, not on account of the nature [gravity] of the sin. There is no absolutely unforgivable sin such as cannot be forgiven even though a man repents.”

“God promised His mercy to all, and granted to His priests the license of forgiving sins without any exception.”
– St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397)

God the Father also allegedly spoke about this sin to St. Hildegard von Bingen, saying that those who "impenitently blaspheme… so stifle the understanding of their hearts that they cannot aspire upwards… But if any of these is led by penitence and truly seeks Me, he shall find Me, for I reject no one who comes to Me with a sincere heart.”

Whatever our interpretation, we must be consistent with Church teaching. “Christ promised to His Church and transmitted to His Church the power to forgive sins without limitation. The expressions quodcumque solveris (Mt. 16, 19), quaecumque solveritis (Mt. 18, 18), quorum remiseritis peccata (John 20, 23) show that the power in question is conceived to be as inclusive and as general as possible.” (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’)

God bless.

Yes this. Very nice.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Whereas it seems to me that Dawkins and his ilk will not be forgiven, despite any good works they do in this life, there is no good work they can do that can in anyway ameliorate their ongoing sin of leading others to their death of the soul.

We should pray for them. They will be forgiven if they repent. You should read Book 4, Chapter 142 of the Revelations of St. Bridget! I will summarise it below. It is a profound revelation from Our Lord:

"Listen, Pope Gregory… Why do you hate me so? Your worldly court is plundering my heavenly court. In your pride you are robbing me of my sheep. You unjustly extort and filch the ecclesiastical property that belongs to me as well as the possessions of the subjects of my church, and you give them to your temporal friends…

Furthermore, you are stealing and plundering countless souls away from me. You cast into the fire of Gehenna nearly all those who come to your court, simply because you do not take diligent care of the things pertaining to my court, though you are the prelate and shepherd of my sheep. It is therefore your fault, because you do not prudently consider what must be done or corrected for their spiritual salvation.

Though I could justly condemn you for all the aforesaid, yet I am again admonishing you out of mercy for the salvation of your soul to come to your see in Rome as soon as you can… As soon as you have thus come, uproot, pluck out and destroy all the vices of your court! Separate yourself from the counsel of carnal-minded and worldly friends and follow humbly the spiritual counsel of my friends. Approach, then, and be not afraid. Get up like a man and clothe yourself confidently in strength!

Start to reform the church that I purchased with my own blood in order that it may be reformed and led back spiritually to its pristine state of holiness, for nowadays more veneration is shown to a brothel than to my Holy Church.

… Heed my counsel. I am your Father and Creator. If you obey me in what I told you, I will welcome you mercifully like a loving father. Bravely approach the way of justice and you shall prosper. Do not despise the one who loves you. If you obey, I will show you mercy and bless and dress you and adorn you with the precious pontifical regalia of a true pope. I shall clothe you with myself in such a way that you will be in me and I in you, and you shall be glorified in eternity.”

 

[jerome_ky]

Perhaps I misunderstand, but this does not seem quite right to me: it’s not a sin against the Love between Father and Son, expressed as the Holy Spirit, it’s a sin against the Love between God (as the Trinity) and Man, expressed through the Holy Spirit.

it’s not a sin that just affects the sinner. Look at how the sin plays out today - where we have evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit by denying that God’s miracles are miracles. Their blasphemies have led others to stray from the Truth; as a result of these evangelical atheists we have children being born today into what were once overwhelmingly Christian Countries who have never been baptized. Without baptism they have no protection against Satan and are subject to original sin.

Contrast this blasphemy against the Spirit with something like the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy is a blasphemy against Christ, denying the fullness of Our Lord’s divinity and oneness with the Father, but does not, like Dawkins’ blasphemy, deny all of God’s miracles and while it led many Christians away from the Full Truth, they still baptized their children and recognized (most of) God’s miracles.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it seems to me that perhaps those Arian Heretics of the early Church fall under those whose sins can be (emphasis on “can” not “will” - subject to God’s mercy which is not something I am really competent to write about) forgiven in the next life: after suitable penance in Purgatory. Whereas it seems to me that Dawkins and his ilk will not be forgiven, despite any good works they do in this life, there is no good work they can do that can in anyway ameliorate their ongoing sin of leading others to their death of the soul.

Arius was anathemised at the First Council of Constantinople. The history of Arianism seems to suggest that Arian heretics can not be forgiven, because they were in conflict with the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit regarding the Trinity.

I’m going to suggest here that we need to understand the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Comforter, as being that Spirit that was promised by Christ to guide the Church that He established on Cephas. I have read that saints have written that the Holy Spirit overshadows the priest at the moment of consecration as He did Mary at the conception of Christ. The same Spirit guides and protects both Mary and the Church. So, when Jesus drove out demons by the Holy Spirit, so must we understand that the Church drives them out by the same Spirit.

What I am leading up to is that Dawkins and the Arians are no different from each other in this respect. The Arians are no less heretics than Dawkins for the same reason that Protestants are no less heretics. They don’t have the Holy Spirit that overshadows their “ministers” because they aren’t ordained priests and so cannot consecrate the host. I hate to say but this seems incontrovertible to me. I am open to debate.