Skip to main content

The Holy Spirit

God is pretty mysterious, but you'd have to say the Holy Spirit is the most mysterious. He is called the "Comforter" by Jesus, but He also convicts the world in regard to sin and righteousness. He blows where he wills. He changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Whenever I have wanted to understand the Scriptures, I have always implored the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, we have a great gift in the Magisterium, who gives the final, definitive interpretation of any matter touching or morals, when necessary. Of course, the infallibility of the Church under certain circumstances is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Every time you are moved to pray, (authentically) that is a grace of the Holy Spirit. Every time any true supernatural good work is done, it's the Holy Spirit. One of the deep realities of the new covenant in the blood of Christ is that people are united in the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

We can't say enough, and that makes sense, for He is God.

Comments

Nathan said…
I have always felt that the Holy Spirit is often treated with horrifying dishonor by the way we (Catholics and Protestants) attempt to deal with questions of authority. One one hand are many protestants defending sola scriptura and Catholics persuasively attacking it. However, it has been my (limited) experience that Catholics present a false dilemma: they assume that if sola scriptura is incorrect then the Magesterium must be the work of the Holy Spirit. How, then, has the Magesterium made so many awful, violent, unchristian declarations over the centuries? On the third hand, and imagining they have third hands, are the wild charismatics, obsessed with mystical powers their manipulative leaders claim to have acquired.

I feel at home among the anabaptists, who have accepted none of those three errors and have tried to simply live according to the pattern exemplified by Jesus and taught by the apostles, often answering grave threats with peace and faithfulness. Why not listen to God, instead of insisting on a human hierarchy either of priests or of scholars? Jesus told us explicitly that none of us should be called rabbi. His spirit is with us, and we don't need any other source of authority. It is a scandalous thing to stand before God's throne and ask for someone else's advice. Indeed, I suspect we will eventually regard our past pursuit of another authority with embarrassment and joyful repentance.
Jason said…
Nathan,

How many of the alleged horrors of the Catholic Church actually occurred? Moreover, to acknowledge the divine authority of the Catholic Church is not to deny freedom, and that this freedom is routinely abused. Rather, it is to say that, insofar as dogmatic truth has been protected and preserved, it is a work of the Holy Spirit. That's exactly what Jesus said would happen. I don't feel the need to apologize for things others did in the name of Christ, except in the most general sense. But if we are talking how we know what we know supernatually, we are talking infallibility, and that movie always ends the same way.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un