"He will send Him in My name"
Christ makes good on His Promise. He has sent His Spirit, the Paraclete, and, Deo gratias, things will never be the same again for His holy Church is officially off and running in fulfilling His command to His disciples to preach the Gospel to all. Peace He has given them to spread not as the world perceives it even today when humanism is trumpeted from the highest echelons of the conciliarists. We must return to what our Lord taught and what His chosen apostles preached without compromise. Peace is only possible when grace flows. Only then can the Sanctifier reach souls. When God withdraws His graces and blessings, corruption and corrosion follow and all man-made institutions will crumble because they are not of divine design.
Comprehensive Catholic Commentary
Fr. George Leo Haydock
Epistle: Acts of the Apostles 2: 1-11
1 AND when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place:
Commentary on Verse 1: Altogether in one place. The Greek signifies, were all of one mind. Wi.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.
Commentary on Verse 2: A sound, & c. Perhaps this was a kind of thunder, accompanied with a great wind, which filled with terror and awe the whole company, and disposed them to receive the gift of heaven with humility and fervour. This noise appears to have been heard over a great part of the city, and to have gathered together a great crowd, who came to learn the cause. This noise and wind were symbols of the divinity. It was thus also that formerly on Mount Sinai, thunder and lightning, the dark cloud, the smoking mountain, & c. marked the majesty of God. Calmet â€“ Jesus Christ, our Pasch, to answer perfectly the figure, was offered on the day of the great Jewish Passover; so fifty days after, for accomplishing the like figure of the law given on Mount Sinai, He sent down the Holy Ghost on the day of their Pentecost, which meaneth fifty. But our feasts, as S. Augustin remarks, besides the remembrance of benefits past, contain great mysteries also of the life to come. Ep. cxix. c. 16.
3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them:
Commentary on Verse 3: Tongues . . . of fire. The Hebrews use the name tongue, for almost any thing pointed. Thus they say, a tongue of the earth, for a promontory. Josue xv. 5. A fiery tongue for a flame in shape of a tongue. Isa. V. 24. The expression, therefore, in this place, may mean nothing more than sparks, or rather flames, which appeared above all who were in the house. â€“ Sed et Latinis quod extremum et acutum est lingua dicitur, quare scopulos summos & invios linguas dixit Caesar. P. â€“ By the fiery tongues is signified the efficacy of the apostlesâ€™ preaching, and the gift of tongues bestowed upon them. M.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.
Commentary on Verse 4: Began to speak divers tongues. Perhaps the apostles spoke only their own tongue, and the miracle consisted in each oneâ€™s understanding it as if they spoke it in his language. S. Greg. Nazianzen. Orat. xliv. â€“ But S. Augustin and most others, understand the text literally; though the apostles had not this gift on all occasions, nor on all subjects, and therefore sometimes stood in need of interpreters. Vide S. Aug. in Psalm xvii. Expos. 2. and Serm. 188. â€“ The same Father observes, that the conversion of all nations to the Church, and their being united in one faith, all having one language or confession, is a perpetuation of the same miracle in the Church.
5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue.
7 And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans?
8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,
11 Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.
Gospel: St. John 14: 23 â€“ 31
23 At that time Jesus said to His disciples: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not Mine; but the Father's who sent me.
25 These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you.
Commentary on Verse 23-25: Lord, how is it? Lit, what is done, or, what will be done, that thou art about to manifest thyself to us, and not to the world? This apostle imagined, that the Messias would make manifest his glory of a temporal kingdom, not to them only, but to all the world. But Christ, by his answer, lets him know, that he spoke only of a manifestation of his love to those that loved him. If any man love me, my Father will love him, and we will come to him, that is, the three divine persons, will come to his soul, in a special manner, so as to bless him with an infusion of graces, and make our abode in his soul.
26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Commentary on Verse 26: The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, as proceeding also from me: and therefore Christ saith, in the next chapter, (v. 26) that he himself will send him from the Father. He will teach you all things, & c. He will give you a more perfect knowledge of all those truths, which I have taught you. Wi. â€“ Teach you all things. Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles, and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error. Ch. â€“ The Scripture, in different places, remarks, that the apostles did not understand the accomplishment of prophecies, as soon as they were fulfilled. Luke xxiv. 27. Thy could not draw the comparison between the actions of our Saviour, and the figures of the old law: but no sooner had the Holy Ghost descended upon them, than they explained the Scriptures, their hearts and eyes being opened and enlightened, by the light of the Holy Spirit. Calmet. â€“ See c. xvi. v. 12. and 13.
27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid.
28 You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come unto you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I.
Commentary on Verse 28: The Father is greater than I. According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God:) the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says S. Chrys. will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. S. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections. Wi. â€“ The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him. S. Basil, S. Aug. & c. â€“ Others, likewise, answer it thus: Following the confused opinion of the world, and even of the apostles themselves, who as yet only considered Christ as a prophet, and as a man, eminent in virtue and sanctity, he was less than the Father. S. Chrys. Leont. Theophyl. Euthym. â€“ And likewise the title of Father, (as we generally use the word) is greater, and much more honourable, that that of Son; and in this respect, Christ is inferior to his Father. S. Athanas. S. Hilar. S. Epiph. S. Greg. Nazianz. And S. Cyril. â€“ But this appellation, though really true, does not destroy the equality of the persons, because Christ has declared, in numerous other places, that he is equal to the Father; that he is in the Father; and that he and the Father are one. The apostles ought to have rejoiced that Christ was going to the Father, who was superior to him, considering him in his human nature; because, then, would the Son shew forth his honour and glory to be equal to the Fatherâ€™s, in heaven. This would have been a mark of a pure, solid, and disinterested love, which ought to have inspired the apostles, if they truly loved their divine Master. Calmet. â€“ Protestants assume to themselves the liberty of making the Bible only, the exclusive rule of faith, yet refuse this privilege to others. Thus Luther insisted, that his catechism should be taught, and followed. Calvin burnt Servetus for explaining his faith, by his own private interpretation of the Bible, particularly of these words, the Father is greater than I. The Church of England compels every clergyman to swear to the Thirty-nine Articles, and has inflicted the severest penalties on such as interpreted the Bible according to the principles of Socinus; and on Catholics, who understand the words of Jesus Christ, This is my body: this is my blood, in the literal and obvious sense of the words. As long as each individual is at liberty to expound Scripture by the private spirit, it is a great injustice to compel any one, by penal laws, to yield his judgment to any authority, that is not less fallible than his own.
29 And now I have told you before it comes to pass: that when it shall come to pass, you may believe.
30 I will not now speak many things with you. For the prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing.
31 But that the world may know, that I love the Father: and as the Father hath given me commandment, so do I: Arise, let us go hence.
Commentary on Verse 31: As the Father hath given me commandment, so I do. â€“ He again speaks of himself, as man. Arise, let us go hence. Yet by c. xviii. c. 1. Christ still continued the like instructions, either in the same place, or in the way to Gethsemani. Wi.http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article7Article 7. Whether the goodness of the will, as regards the means, depends on the intention of the end?Objection 1.
It would seem that the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end. For it has been stated above (Article 2) that the goodness of the will depends on the object alone. But as regards the means, the object of the will is one thing, and the end intended is another. Therefore in such matters the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end.Objection 2.
Further, to wish to keep God's commandment, belongs to a good will. But this can be referred to an evil end, for instance, to vainglory or covetousness, by willing to obey God for the sake of temporal gain. Therefore the goodness of the will does not depend on the intention of the end.Objection 3.
Further, just as good and evil diversify the will, so do they diversify the end. But malice of the will does not depend on the malice of the end intended; since a man who wills to steal in order to give alms, has an evil will, although he intends a good end. Therefore neither does the goodness of the will depend on the goodness of the end intended.On the contrary,
Augustine says (Confess. ix, 3) that God rewards the intention. But God rewards a thing because it is good. Therefore the goodness of the will depends on the intention of the end.I answer that,
The intention may stand in a twofold relation to the act of the will; first, as preceding it, secondly as following [Leonine edn.: 'accompanying'] it. The intention precedes the act of the will causally, when we will something because we intend a certain end. And then the order to the end is considered as the reason of the goodness of the thing willed: for instance, when a man wills to fast for God's sake; because the act of fasting is specifically good from the very fact that it is done for God's sake. Wherefore, since the goodness of the will depends on the goodness of the thing willed, as stated above (1,2), it must, of necessity, depend on the intention of the end.
On the other hand, intention follows the act of the will, when it is added to a preceding act of the will; for instance, a man may will to do something, and may afterwards refer it to God. And then the goodness of the previous act of the will does not depend on the subsequent intention, except in so far as that act is repeated with the subsequent intention.
Reply to Objection 1.
When the intention is the cause of the act of willing, the order to the end is considered as the reason of the goodness of the object, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2.
The act of the will cannot be said to be good, if an evil intention is the cause of willing. For when a man wills to give an alms for the sake of vainglory, he wills that which is good in itself, under a species of evil; and therefore, as willed by him, it is evil. Wherefore his will is evil. If, however, the intention is subsequent to the act of the will, then the latter may be good: and the intention does not spoil that act of the will which preceded, but that which is repeated.Reply to Objection 3.
As we have already stated (06, ad 1), "evil results from each particular defect, but good from the whole and entire cause." Hence, whether the will tend to what is evil in itself, even under the species of good; or to the good under the species of evil, it will be evil in either case. But in order for the will to be good, it must tend to the good under the species of good; in other words, it must will the good for the sake of the good.