|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 1, Number 7
 July 1990 
|
|
|
Is the Holy Spirit an Impersonal Force?
Q: A Jehovah's Witness told me the Holy Spirit's a force, not a person. She said the Bible teaches that the apostles were "filled with the Spirit" and you can't be filled with a person.
A: The Jehovah's Witnesses' denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit can be refuted from the Bible. The passages they cite in defense of their position won't work. Acts 2:4 does say the apostles were "filled with the Holy Spirit," but it's important to understand what this means.
Being "filled with the Holy Spirit" is another way of saying the apostles were surrendered to the Spirit's control. It doesn't prove the Holy Spirit is not a person, any more than passages which speak of Christians being filled with God the Father (Eph. 3:19) or which mention Christ indwelling believers (Col. 1:27) prove the Father and Christ are not persons.
Other Bible passages indicate the Spirit's personhood. The Holy Spirit speaks (John 14:16, 26; Acts 10:19, 11:2), he fellowships with believers (2 Cor. 13:13), he can be grieved by our sin (Eph. 4:30), he can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4), he comforts (Acts 9:31), he makes decisions (Acts 15:28-29), and he helps believers to pray (Rom. 8:26-27).
1 Corinthians 6:19 says Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit. A temple is dedicated to someone, a god of some kind, not to something. This implies the Holy Spirit is a person, not a force.
When Jesus gives his disciples the formula for baptism in Matthew 28:19, he says to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (The Witnesses replace "Holy Spirit" in their baptisms with "God's organization," but their New World Translation offers the traditional rendering of this text). The Father and the Son are persons, so why shouldn't we suppose the Holy Spirit is as well?
The Witnesses say these texts are only personifications, but it makes more sense that the expressions (such as being "filled with the Holy Spirit") which seem impersonal are metaphorical than that the majority of passages which suggest the personality of the Holy Spirit are personifications.
Q: Does the Church still teach you have to go to confession before receiving Communion? My pastor says you don't.
A: Your pastor may say you don't, but Canon Law says you do, at least if you're conscious of any unconfessed mortal sins.
According to canon 916, "a person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible."
Q: I keep hearing about the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. What's the difference, besides one being ordinary and the other extraordinary?
A: Jesus commanded his apostles to teach his gospel to all nations until the end of time (Matt. 28:19-20). The magisterium of the Church refers to the teaching authority he gave to his apostles and through them to their successors, the bishops of the Church united with the Pope, the successor of Peter.
The ordinary magisterium refers to the normal manner by which the bishops instruct the faithful--the daily preaching of the gospel, their oversight of the catechetical formation in their dioceses, the issuance of pastoral letters, developing diocesan guidelines on prayer and worship, and so on.
Not everything taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church is infallible--absolutely free from even the possibility of error due to the Holy Spirit's safeguard--but much is. On this point, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states:
"Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that among themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely" (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).
The extraordinary magisterium of the Church can also teach infallibly. There are two forms of the extraordinary magisterium.
First, there's the teaching of an ecumenical council. We've had 21 of them in the history of the Church, the most recent being Vatican II. This form of magisterial teaching occurs when the bishops of the Church assembled in council, with the pope as the head of the episcopal college, define a teaching on matters of faith and morals. In such circumstances their teaching is infallible.
The second form of the extraordinary magisterium is an ex cathedra pronouncement from the pope. This is papal infallibility. Vatican II described papal infallibility this way:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Luke 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals.
"For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, inasmuch as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself" (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).
In addition to infallible teaching by the magisterium, there's also what is often called "authentic teaching," teaching which hasn't been presented infallibly by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, but which is still authoritative and to be accepted by Catholics.
In speaking of "authentic teaching," Vatican II declared:
"Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. When their bishop speaks in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, the faithful are to accept his teaching with a religious assent of soul.
"This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will" (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).
Q: The Old Testament commends those who "have not bowed unto Baal" and who have "not kissed him" (1 Kings 19:18). Catholics both bow to statues and kiss them. This proves your religion endorses idolatry, so Catholicism is pagan.
A: It proves no such thing. The Bible condemns the worship of false gods. It also indicates one way false worship can be expressed is by bowing before an idol or kissing it. But you can't leap from that to conclude that all bowing and kissing indicates worship.
When a man kisses his wife is he worshiping her? Or when he kisses a photograph of his wife is he worshiping it? When, in Oriental cultures, people bow to one another in greeting (their equivalent of shaking hands), are they worshiping one another? Of course not.
Q: When I was a Catholic, I was told I could pray only in set formulas, at certain times and places. Now that I'm a born-again Christian, I can pray in my own words, anytime, anywhere--even while washing the dishes!
A: That some priest, sister, or other religious instructor actually told you, "Pray only in set formulas, at certain times and places," seems unlikely to us. Probably you misunderstood what was said.
Or did you perhaps conclude from the set liturgical prayers of the Mass and prayerbooks that all prayer must take this pre-arranged form? If so, you unfortunately fell prey to non sequitur reasoning: It was a logical fallacy to assume because some prayers are standardized in their wording, all prayers must be.
The Catholic Church always has taught that you can pray in your own words anytime, anywhere. In fact, the importance of mental prayer as a constant attitude throughout the day is stressed by Catholic spiritual writers, both ancient and contemporary.
We rejoice you've discovered that you can pray in your own words, but we regret that you formed the erroneous impression that this wasn't possible within Catholicism and that you concluded you had to leave the Church to be able to pray while you wash your dishes.
By the way, speaking of washing, you already were a born-again Christian as a Catholic. This is not to deny at all the reality of the spiritual conversion you underwent under Protestant auspices, a conversion that made Christianity come alive for you. It is merely to point out that you were born again at your baptism. As an Evangelical Protestant, you may object to this statement, but the clear teaching of Scripture (John 3:3, 5, 22; Titus 3:5) would be against you.
Q: Be honest: Doesn't Galatian 2:11-14 refute your pet doctrine of papal infallibility? There, the apostle Paul clearly indicts Peter (the first pope, according to you) with teaching the Judaizing heresy.
A: Paul did no such thing. Neither his words nor the context support such an idea.
You are right in recognizing that in his letter to the Galatians Paul is contending against the Judaizers, who taught that the Mosaic ceremonial laws, including circumcision and the dietary laws, were still in force. But notice that in the preceding ten verses (Gal. 2:1-10) Paul goes to great lengths to assure his readers that he and Peter saw eye to eye on this issue.
(Notice, by the way, that throughout these chapters Paul refers to Simon Peter as "Cephas"--the transliteration of the Aramaic "Rock"--in recognition of the unshakeable doctrinal steadfastness conferred upon Peter by our Lord in Matthew 16:18.)
The problem at Antioch arose when Peter acted in a manner inconsistent with his creed. It was not a matter of doctrinal error, but hypocrisy (the very Greek word Paul uses in verse 13), which means not practicing what one preaches. If Peter's drawing back from fellowship with non-kosher-eating Gentiles had stemmed from a faulty theology, he could not have been indicted by Paul as being guilty of hypocrisy.
Even in his very rebuke of Peter, Paul explicitly testifies to their doctrinal agreement: "We who are Jews by birth...we [you and I, Cephas] know that a man is not justified by such Mosaic ceremonies" (Gal. 2:15-16).
There is therefore nothing in the passage that undermines the doctrine of papal infallibility. There is plenty in the passage to undermine the notion of papal impeccability (the inability of the popes to sin), but that is a doctrine the Catholic Church doesn't teach.
If one were to reply that we teach by our behavior, we would agree, but "teaching" in that broad sense has never been included in the claims the Catholic Church makes for papal infallibility, so it is hardly vulnerable to criticism on that point.
Q: How should I respond to Catholics who criticize me for wanting to evangelize non-Catholics, especially Protestants? They call me divisive, and Protestants call me triumphalistic.
A: Before you respond, examine your conscience. One can be guilty of both problems (divisiveness and triumphalism) by evangelizing in the wrong way or for the wrong reason. Some folks use religion as a cudgel to beat people over the head with. It's a handy way to bully or intimidate people. Others are condescending and supercilious. They don't care about drawing others to Christ. What they really want is to score another victory at the expense of people who can't argue as well as they.
Now that we've said that, let's consider true evangelization.
Jesus didn't merely suggest we evangelize others--he commanded it (Matt. 5:14-16; Matt. 28:19-20). Catholics are under orders not just to believe the Good News, but to spread it. (That's what the word "evangelize" means.) Is evangelization divisive? In one sense, yes, because it divides truth from error. But evangelization, properly understood, is really an invitation to unity--the unity Jesus ardently desires for us (John 15:4-7, John 17:20-26).
We should never be haughty or condescending when sharing our faith with others. The invitation to join the Catholic Church should be couched in the language of love and patience. This invitation is neither antagonistic nor triumphalistic. As Paul explained in Galatians 4:16 and Ephesians 4:15, it's telling the truth in love.
Q: As a Black Muslim, I feel Christianity's depiction of God as a white man has reinforced the racist oppression of blacks. What do you have to say about this?
A: Racism, an abomination to God and an affront to human dignity, is one of the most pervasive and pernicious of social sins. It is a sad and painful fact that blacks have suffered injustice and indignities at the hands of whites, especially in this and other countries settled by Europeans--just as it is a sad and painful fact that in other countries whites have sometimes suffered at the hands of blacks (and whites at the hands of other whites, and blacks at the hands of other blacks, of course).
Racism as a spiritual disease doesn't seem to restrict its ravaging effects to any one race--or to any one religion: Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), Jews, Muslims, and others have all fallen short of the high ideals of their respective faiths in this regard.
As for Christians depicting God as a white man, Christians, like Jews and Muslims, believe that God is a spirit and therefore has no body (John 4:24). He is therefore neither white, black, nor any other color.
You may be thinking of anthropomorphic art (art depicting God in human terms) adorning, say, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, where God is portrayed (in the fresco showing the creation of Adam) as a gigantic, muscular man with a flowing white beard. But all cultures invariably depict God in their own terms. God himself did this for us in the Incarnation.
Jesus, of course, was neither white nor black, but a Palestinian Jew. Europeans sometimes have exercised artistic license by painting Christ with blond hair, blue eyes, and light skin, but African art depicts Christ as an African, Oriental art depicts him as an Oriental, and so forth. Provided these depictions are understood as an expression of cultural solidarity with Christ and not as true-to-life photographs, there's no harm in them.
By the way, if you happen to find yourself looking for a new religion, you may want to skip investigating Mormonism, which teaches that God is, indeed, a white man. What's more, Mormonism teaches that blacks have black skin because they've been cursed, and people with dark skin of any hue (black, brown, whatever) are inferior to those with light skin. But never fear: If you live as a good Mormon, you can have a lively hope that your skin will turn white.
Does this sound a little bizarre to you? Check it out in the Mormon holy books – it's all there in black and white.
Q: Why did Jesus have to ask Peter three times if he loved him (John 21:15-19)? Doesn't our Lord's apparent lack of confidence in Peter undermine the high view of Peter that Catholics take?
A: Catholics wish to hold no higher a view of Peter than Jesus held. Our source for the claims we make about the papacy are the straightforward statements of Scripture itself.
This passage is a prime example. First of all, Jesus is certainly reminding Peter of his sin of cowardice in having denied him three times (Matthew 26:69-75), in order to bring him to repentance and restoration to full communion with Christ.
Most people see this connection between the three-fold denial and the three-fold reaffirmation of loyalty to Christ and can appreciate the consummate pastoral skill exercised by our Lord in giving Peter a chance to "cancel out" his earlier betrayal.
But there's more to it than that. John 21 is a classic specimen of the "call of the prophet" genre of biblical narrative. These "call narratives" frequently follow a standardized three-fold form. The three-fold repetition of the command for Peter to care for Christ's flock serves to underscore the divine foundation of his office and authority.
|
Catholic Answers
