ALORE
ILORIN JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITY
Vol. 13, 2003
ISSN 0794-445
Cover Design
Sunday Enessi Ododo
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND HUMAN AUTHORITY
IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE
NIGERIAN CONTEXT
Pius Oyeniran Abioje, Ph.D
Department of Religions
University of Ilorin,
Ilorin, Nigeria.
Introduction
Abuse of authority is a big problem in Africa. In Nigeria, this vice
often results in oppression, exploitation, impoverishment, poverty and
misery. It cannot be said that the abuse of authority is limited to the civil
or secular arena. Ecclesiastical officers, ministers and their agents are
sometimes accused of abuse of authority, both rightly and wrongly.
Exploitation and victimization have no boundary. And it cannot be said
that the Holy Spirit is always in effective control of church officers. It is
rightly said that a person must cooperate if the Spirit of God is to
practically guide, control and direct human decisions and actions.
In the opinion of Michael Green, many Christians know very little
or nothing about the Holy Spirit. In support of this position, Green
quotes from the Acts of the Apostles, about the disciples at Ephesus
whom Paul asked: "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you
believed?", and they replied: 'No, we have never even heard that there
is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19;l-2)'.
It is hardly possible for a baptized adult of today never to have heard
about the Holy Spirit, but the level of understanding may be questioned.
Someone who has only a vague idea of the Holy Spirit cannot qualify as
knowing who or what the Holy Spirit is, in a lucid sense. John
O'Donnell notes that: "In the history of Christian theology, the Holy
Spirit has often appeared as the unknown God. From an historical
perspective, the nature of the Holy Spirit was not a subject of
speculative interest until the fourth century".2 If a people do not know
much about the Holy Spirit, how can they try to discern whether what a
leader says is coming from Him?
So, part of the aim of this work is to attempt to clarify who the
Holy Spirit is, besides discussing his relationship to authority in the
Church. The discourse starts with an identification of the person of the
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (OT) in relation to human authority.
Then, the Holy Spirit and human authority in the New Testament (NT) is
discussed. Thereafter, one examines the pneumatological aspect of
authority in the Catholic Church. That is followed by a discussion on the
Holy Spirit in relation to human authority in the Catholic Church in
Nigerian context. An overall conclusion is then presented.
The Holy Spirit and Human Authority in the Old Testament
God is not conceived as a Trinity by the Hebrews. Hence, the Old
Testament does not speak specifically of God the Son, and God the
Holy Spirit, as we have it in Christianity today. The Hebrew word for
the Spirit of God is Ruah. It is translated Pneuma in Greek. It also
means breath, air, wind or soul. According to Yves Congar, the most
interesting way in which the Ruah is portrayed is when the Spirit or
breath is said to be of God. In other words, when it expresses the
subject by whose power various effects are produced in the world or in
man, and especially in those who receive the gifts of leadership or
prophecy or who become religious persons.3
The purpose of such gifts is invariably to ensure that God's plan for
his people is accomplished. A typical example was when God gave
some of the spirit that-was in Moses to seventy elders (Num. 1 l:16ff),
so that they would share with Moses, the burden of leading the people.
Again, in the Old Testament books, of Wisdom, which include Job and
the Proverbs, numerous Psalms, Qoheleth or Ecclesiastes, Sirach
otherwise called Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom is portrayed as an identical
reality with the Spirit, at least from the point of view of their functions.
In the words of Congar,
The real function of Wisdom, however, is to guide men in
accordance with God's will. For this reason, she chose
especially to reside in Israel, where she formed God's
friends and prophets. She is 'the book of the covenant of the
Most High God, the law which Moses commanded (us)'
(Sir. 24:23).4
Thus, the function of Wisdom is much similar to that of the Spirit:
guiding men and women to do God's will. In the same way, the "Spirit of
the Lord" or the "Spirit of God", sometimes refers to God himself. An
example is when it is written: "Who directed the spirit of Yahweh, what
counsellor could have instructed him?" Or, "but they rebelled and vexed
his Holy Spirit. Then he became their enemy, and himself waged war
on them."(Isaiah 40:13; 63:10).
In sum, the Old Testament does not speak of the Holy Spirit as the
Third person of the Holy Trinity, because it conceives God as being
simply only one, rather than a composite of Three Persons. Hence, to
say, for instance, that the three visitors that visited Abraham in the Old
Testament represent the Trinity is no longer acceptable, since for the
Jews, God has no equal partners, neither can one speak of Him in
terms of Primus inter pares. Such ideas belong to the allegorical form of
interpretation, which has been abandoned to a large extent in favour of
the historical mode of hermeneutics which, expectedly, is much more
realistic and less confusing.
Much more relevant to the interest of this paper is the fact that the
Jews of the OT conceived God as their King, who led them by
bestowing His spirit on certain persons who He has chosen to lead the
people on His behalf. Because the spirit of God is good (Psalm
143:10), no one who truly possessed it could indulge in falsehood and
evil deeds (Micah 2:11). King Saul was an example of a leader who
was disobedient to God, told lies to cover-up his disobedience, but
ended up being rejected by Yahweh. He misled the people to do things
that were forbidden by God (1 Samuel 15:10-23).
In the OT, an abuse of authority was intolerable to God, and it
could not go unpunished. No wonder Saul paid dearly for his unruly
deed (1 Samuel 16:1-3). Likewise David paid for his misdeed (2
Samuel 12:15b- 18), as well as Solomon (1 Kings 11:9-13).
Moreover, if a leader, such as a prophet, should say an instruction or
message came from God when it did not, the OT believed that such a
person would be severely punished by God (Jer. 29:21-23). Thus, no one
in the OT was expected to speak falsely, in the name of God or His spirit.
To do so was a punishable abomination.
The Holy Spirit and Human Authority in the New Testament
In the Gospel according to John, (1:1), it is written: "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God." The "Word" is said to refer to the Lord, Jesus Christ. But the
confusion is yet to be resolved, if it ever can be resolved, how the Word
can be with God and be God at the same time. Through the hermeneutical
method ,of historical criticism, it may be settled that since John and the
Jews, generally speaking, were strict monotheists, the statement cannot
mean that there are two Gods. Thus, except for some triadic texts that
line up the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, such as in the baptismal
formula, there is no defined Trinitarian doctrine in the New
Testament. Hence the New Testament cannot be said to have discussed
the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Holy Trinity (strictly
speaking). An unambiguous Trinitarian definition would have
expressly called Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit would have
been called God, in clear terms also. Most outstanding among the
triadic texts being referred to are the "baptismal formula" in Matthew 28;
19: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."; and
the second letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians 13; 14: "The grace of
the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit be with you all." Likewise, such sentences as: "I and the Father
are one" and "To have seen me is to have seen the Father" (Jn. 14:9-11)
are not interpreted to mean: the Father is God and I am God. This is
because there are several ways by which two or more persons can be one,
for instance, husband and wife should be one in love and in decision
without meaning that the two of them have become a shj'Je person.
Indeed, Paul specifically states that:
Though there are so-called gods, in the heavens or
earth -and there are plenty of gods and plenty of lords yet for us there is only one God, the father from whom
all things come and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom all things come and through whom we
exist. (1 Cor. 8:5-6).
And,
For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator
between God and humanity, himself a human being, Christ
Jesus, who offered himself as a ransom for all. This was the
witness given at the appointed time, of which I was
appointed herald and apostle and -1 am telling the truth and no
lie - a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth. (1 Tim. 2:5-7).
As a matter of fact, as John Mckenzie observes, the New Testament
writers were faithful children of their Jewish and Old Testament
background, which taught that God is absolutely unique.7 For St. Paul in
particular, Joseph Fitzmyer correctly notes that "the Christian Paul looked
back with pride on his life as a Jew of the Pharisaic tradition (Phil. 3:5-6;
1:14; 2 Cor.ll:22), and so, he could not have taught a Trinitarian
doctrine.5
Thus, the New Testament: authors, even as they mentioned the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, remained attached to the Jewish
strict monotheism. Hence, when Trinitarian questions arise, "the New
Testament gives no direct answer". 6 It would appear that the Holy
Spirit found in the NT refers to the same OT "spirit of God", found in
places like Genesis 1:2; Psalm 139:7; Isaiah 11:2; 61:1; and Ezekiel
2:2.
In summary, one can underline the fact that the Spirit of God is not
conceived in the New Testament explicitly as the Third Person of the
Holy Trinity. Holy is used for the Spirit, because it is of God who is
essentially holy. The dogmatic declaration that the Holy Spirit is the
Third Person of the Holy Trinity belongs to the Church, with effect
from 325 A. D. Principal among the ecclesiastical decisive Councils
were those held in Nicea in 325, Constantinople, 381, and Chalcedon,
451 A.D. It is obvious that words such as homoousios, hypostasis, and
hypostatic union, which form the bedrock of the trinity dogma, belong to
the Greek philosophical lexicon, rather than to the Bible. Referring to
the Councils, John Coutts rightly observes that "After much debate they
expressed their faith in the doctrine of the Trinity." In another paragraph,
he writes: "Jesus - they declared after much debate -was truly man and
truly God".7 As a matter of fact, those who refused to accept the divinity
of Jesus were tagged heretics. Likewise, those who would not call Mary
the Mother of Jesus, Theotokos (Mother of God), but Christotokos
(Mother of Christ), suffered persecution.
More relevantly, the Holy Spirit is believed to guide Christian
leaders on Church authority (e.g Acts 13:2; 15:28, 29), and that he is
the principle of vocational gifts (1 Cor. 12 & 14). The Spirit is
believed to be, generally speaking, the principle of the life and activity
that are proper to Christians, as he is said to aid Christians in praying,
and intercedes on their behalf (Rm. 6:26-27). For both the Old and the
New Testaments, the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the spirit of God,
which is often referred to as representing God.
When talking about human authority in the NT, the starting point
has to be Jesus' opinion and approach to authority. He is the Lord and
cynosure of the New Testament. His teaching and practice are
supposed to be the norm or the lamp for the Church's steps. One
would agree with McKenzie, that the only passage in which Jesus
summed up his ministry and idea of authority is in the resolution of a
dispute about who should be reckoned the greatest among the disciples
in the reign of Jesus.8 The Lord Jesus rebuked the disciples:
You know that among the gentiles the rulers lord it over
them, and great men make their authority felt. Among you
this is not to happen. No, anyone who wants to become
great among you must be your servant. And anyone who
wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the
Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give
his life as a ransom for many" (Mt. 20:24-28; Mk. 10:42-45;
Lk. 22:25-27).
Jesus thus contrasted secular authority with the attitude which
Church officers should exhibit: the attitude of a servant. Diakonein in
Greek means to render service, while diakonos (which is anglicised
"deacon") means a minister or a servant.
A most practical way in which the Lord demonstrated his teaching
on humble service to humanity by Christian leaders was when he
washed the Apostles' feet. After he concluded the action, he said if he
who is called "Lord and Master' could wash their feet, they must wash
each other's feet. He emphasized: "I have given you an example so
that you may copy what I have done to you" (Jn. 13:1-15). He did not
perpetrate a kind of master - servant relationship with his disciples.
In the opinion of Mckenzie, the story of the washing of the
Apostles' feet seems to have been written for those who have forgotten
the original force of the word diakonein. He explains, therefore, that
"diakonos is a person whose function is not determined by his own
will; he is entirely at the disposal of others".9 Thus, Jesus did not only
put himself at the service of others but gave his life as a ransom for
many.
The Apostolic College, headed by St. Peter, was said to be guided by
the Holy Spirit in making critical decisions (Acts 13:2-3; 15:28-29;
20:28). The Apostles, who constituted the highest-ranking officers of
the apostolic church, took evangelisation as their major preoccupation. It
would seem that the only act of "management" found in the
Jerusalem church had to do with the distribution of the donated goods,
and that was entrusted to "seven men of good reputation, who were
"full of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:1-7). So, good reputation,
being full of faith and being guided by the Holy Spirit formed the
characteristics of the church officers who constituted the apostolic
authority. The fact that no act of indiscipline, dishonesty and fraud was
tolerated by God and the Apostles was demonstrated both in the choice of
the "seven men of gpod reputation" and in what happened to
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-6).
The Pneumatological Aspect of Authority in the Catholic Church
It is already noted that the spirit of God is not identified as the Third
Person of the Holy Trinity in the OT, since the Jews nursed no
Trinitarian notion of God. At the same time, the OT spirit of God is
identified as the breath of God that gives life, and as the power of God
that moves and strengthens people-to fulfil their God-given vocation,
such as leadership and prophetic vocations. The spirit of God, also
identified as Wisdom of God, guides people to do God's will (Cfr., for
instance, Num. 11:16ff).
In the NT where the spirit of God or Holy Spirit is also not
specifically called the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the spirit is
said to have been given to Jesus at his baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:911; Lk. 3:2Iff). It was the Spirit that led him into the desert for forty
days in preparation for his mission of bringing about the fulfilment of
the Father's will in the world (Mk. l:12ff; Lk. 4: Iff). The Spirit of the
Lord is said to be moving and guiding Jesus throughout his Ministry.
It is also written that during the earthly ministry of Jesus, the Spirit
was given also to the disciples, so that he could speak in them
whenever they were called upon to bear witness to their master (Mk
13:11; Lk. 12:12). Similarly, it was the Spirit of God that moved Jesus
to action that also moved the disciples to action, after the death of
Jesus. This Spirit of Truth, which Jesus promised to send from the
Father is said to have descended on the disciples on the day of the
Pentecost, giving enlightenment and courage to the disciples to begin
their ministry of witnessing to Jesus (Acts. 2: Iff). John McKenzie cites
how the Holy Spirit was directing the officers of the Church in making
critical decisions (Acts 13:2-3; 15:28-29; 20:28).'° Up till today, it is
believed that the Catholic Church authority has never ceased to invoke
the Holy Spirit. As the Second Vatican Council aptly notes, together
with Leo XIII (as indicated in the Council's footnote),
In order that we might be unceasingly renewed in Him (cf,
Eph. 4:23), he has shared with us his spirit who, being one
and the same in head and members, gives life to, unifies
and moves the whole body. Consequently, his work could
be compared by the Fathers to the function that the
principles Of life, the soul, fulfils in the human body
(Lumen Gentium, no 7).
Thus, it is said that the Church has always regarded the Holy Spirit as
her soul, and her principle of guidance. John Paul 11, in his
encyclical letter on the "Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church and the
World", Dominum et Vivificantem, notes that " in the Holy Spirit Paraclete, who in the mystery and action of the Church unceasingly
continues the historical presence on earth of the Redeemer and his
saving work, the glory of Christ shines forth" (No. 7).
Nevertheless, historically, the nature of the Holy Spirit was not
defined by the Church until the fourth century. The Pneumatomachians
(Spirit-fighters), who denied the full Godhead and personhood of the
Holy Spirit, were condemned by Pope Damasus in 374.
Pneumatomachism reached its full development around 380." The
Church had to clarify her understanding of the nature of the Holy
Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son. As earlier noted, the
Chur.ch had done a similar thing at the Council of Nicea in 325, where
she definitively rejected Arianism and affirmed that the Son was fully
equal and of the same nature and substance (homoousios) with the
Father.
Athanasius whose opinion won the debate, had argued at Nicea that
since only God can save, Jesus must be fully .divine. If Christ is not
God, we are not saved. Using a similar argument, he explained that
since the purpose of the Incarnation was human divinisation, the Holy
Spirit who makes Christ present in men and women must also be fully
God as the Father and the Son. If the Spirit is not God, we are not
Divinized.12
Under the influence of Athanasius, and the development of his
basic insight by three prominent Cappadocians (Basil of Caesaria,
Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), the Council of
Constantinople in 381 proclaimed: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the
lord and Giver of life who proceeds from the Father, who together with
the Father and the Son is adored and glorified." But the Western
Church later added that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father
and the Son. According to E.A. Livingstone, this is "first met with as
an interpolation at the Third Council of Toledo (589).13 Otherwise,
Eastern theologians preferred a Single, rather than Double Procession
(Filioque). They argued that there must be a single Fount of Divinity in
the Godhead. For the Easterners, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the
Father, through the Son. As Livingstone further notes, the controversy
constituted one of the chief points of difficulty at the Council of
Florence (1438-1445).14 Up till today, however, the Western Church
holds that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son,
and that He is equal to them in the Godhead.
More relevantly, from human perspective, the Church as an
institution has laws and regulations to guide the operations and
functions of its officers. The Catholic Church teaches that:
Christ's Church is not a society of equals as if all the
faithful in it had the same rights; but it is a society in which
not all are equal. And this is so not only because some of the
faithful are clerics and some laymen, but especially because
in the Church there is a power of divine institution, by
which some are authorised to sanctify, teach, and govern,
and others do not have this authority.15
That is the submission of the First Vatican Council (1869-70). The
Council recognises a twofold power in the Church. One called the
power of orders and the other called the power of jurisdiction.
Emphatically, the Fathers of the Council insist: "We teach with regard to
this latter power in particular that it is jurisdiction that is absolute and
perfectly complete, legislative, judicial, and coercive, and that it pertains
not only to the internal and sacramental forum but also to the external
and public".16
The subjects of this power "are the pastors and teachers appointed
by Christ, and they exercise it freely and independently of any secular
control." The Fathers quote Titus 2:15 to justify this full authority in
ruling " the church of God with laws that are necessary and binding in
conscience, with judicial decrees." This full authority includes
"salutary punishments for offenders even though they are unwilling".
And this applies "not only in matters of faith and morals, of worship,
and of sanctification, but also in those matters which pertain to the
external discipline and administration of the church." So, one is asked to
"believe Christ's Church is a perfect society, where laws are enacted to
be obeyed and enforced." In addition, the Fathers note: "This true and
highly favoured Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy,
Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church".17
In the same vein, the Fathers identify themselves with the teaching
of the Council of Florence (1438-45) when they quote the Council's
teaching on the Roman Pontiff (or the position of Peter in the Church):
The Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of
the whole Church, the father and teacher of all Christians;
and that to him, in the person of St. Peter, was given by our
Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and
governing the whole Church.1
The most unique contribution of the First Vatican Council on the
position of the Roman Pontiff is the definition of the doctrine of papal
infallibility, which the Fathers called a " divinely revealed dogma"
(Ibidem). That means the pope is infallible when he defines, ex
cathedra, a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the
Universal Church. Such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are,
therefore, "irreformable because of their nature, not because of the
agreement of the Church"20.
A typical reaction to the teachings of the First Vatican Council
today is found in Avery Dulles. He sympathetically explains that the
authoritarian nature of the Council's pronouncements were due to the
prevailing circumstances of the Council's era. As he explains, it was
an era of legitimism and restoration, a time when many religious
thinkers were reacting against the excesses of the Enlightenment and of
the French Revolution. The Church herself saw liberalism as the
archenemy of the Christian spirit, and so extolled faith as an obedient
submission of the person to the revealing word of God.21
One finds also in Dulles, a comparison of the legalistic
pronouncements of the First Vatican Council with those of the Second
Vatican Council (1962-1965) that are more pastoralistic. In this wise,
Dulles notes that the First Vatican Council sees divine truth as coming
to the faithful through the mediation of their appointed hierarchical
leaders, thereby suggesting a pyramidal model, in which revelation
descends from the pope through the bishops to the pastors, who then
mediate it by their preaching to the laity. The Second Vatican Council,
on the other hand, "accents the value of lay initiatives and the freedom of
the Holy Spirit to bestow his Charisms as he pleases".22
In the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, John McKenzie also
notes that" the entire structure of the Church, including the lay state, is
also a divine institution".23 One can notice that today, lay people are
participating, at a deeper level, in the liturgical, theological, and
pastoral decisions and activities of the (Catholic) Church. In some
places, laymen are ordained deacons, and laywomen and men are
appointed extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. What the
Church has not yielded to is priestly ordination of women, and the call
for local leadership, whereby selected lay (non-celibate) community
leaders may be ordained to hear confessions, preside over Eucharistic
celebration, and perform the functions of the priest in their respective
communities. The proponents of the latter give biblical and traditional
bases for the proposal. They believe that such a practice would make
the local community responsible and self-determined. Theologians,
such as Jean-Marc Ela probably based themselves on the general
understanding that only divine law, which emanate directly from God is
unchangeable, while ecclesiastical laws may be modified or
cancelled.2 There is also the historical fact that Apostles, such as St.
Peter, and most early leaders of the Church were not celibate and they
were seen to have enjoyed the gift of leadership, reposed in them by
the Holy spirit.
The Holy Spirit vis-a-vis Human Authority in the Catholic Church in
Nigeria
One discovered that the largely undemocratic system of
ecclesiastical governance, which is practised in the Catholic Church,
with particular reference to Nigeria, is both positive and negative. On the
negative side, those in authority may manipulate with regard to "their
subordinates, the ecclesiastical community and property under their
control. Thus, a bishop, a congregational superior or a mother-general
may victimize, marginalize and exploit, depending on his or her
personal characteristic traits and dispositions. Embezzlement of funds
and misappropriations are also said to take place among the clergy and
lay officers.
With particular reference to the clergy, the Catholic hierarchical order
often implies almost unlimited authority over those in the lower ranks. A
parish priest may, for instance, decide to stay permanently in the main
Church of the parish, while he sends his assistant (fellow priest) to a
tattered outstation constantly. Or, he may always assign to himself every
liturgical service requested by rich parishioners who can afford to give a
fat stipend. The parish priest may also impose unfair residential
regulations on his subordinate fellow priest(s), including regulations that
may not be binding on himself.
In summary, what a parish priest does to those under him can
similarly be done by those in higher authority. A bishop may, for
instance, enact a policy that may not be favourable to those under his
jurisdiction. Priestcraft is a notable feature of most priesthoods,
universally speaking.
Conclusion
The fear that is being expressed, with regard to the influence of the
Holy Spirit on Church authority, is that a Church officer can claim to be
speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit, while his words and actions
are anything but holy. This fear is expressed by theologians, such as
McKenzie 2 and Drane James.26 The latter, for instance, writes that: "The
danger of Church authority is that it will be confused with God's will.
Once this happens, all tolerance and capacity for self-criticism
disappear". He warns further: "There can be no social unit without
authority and power and these are never present without the temptation to
use them in an unloving, even an unjust way. This temptation must be
prepared for".27
That fear would appear genuine and realistic. Yves Congar however
notes that the mid-twentieth century is characterised by the re-discovery
of men who are truly Christian in their humanity itself, and "the Popes
of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries and with them, the whole
body of the bishops, have stood before the eyes of the whole world as
men for whom power is responsibility and authority service".28 One may
express some reservation particularly with regard to "the whole body of
the bishops", but Congar has made his point, and there is no doubt that
the Church might have made at least a slight progress, both in Nigeria and
in the world at large. More importantly, ecclesiastical leaders are expected
to show genuine leadership in faith, hope, love, compassion, generosity,
fairness and honesty.
Notes and References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
M. Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, (Grand Rapids: William B.
Berdmans, Publishing Company, 1975), p. 11.
J. J. O'Donnel, The Mystery of the Triune God, (London: Sheed
and Ward, 1988), p. 75.
Cougar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Vol. 1: The Experience of the
Holy Spirit, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), p. 4.
Ibid. p. 4.
J. A. Fitzmyer, "Pauline Theology", in The Jerome Biblical
Commentary, (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India,
1995), p. 1384, n. 82:10).
H. R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, (Ibadan: Day
Star Press, 1976), p. 109
J. Coiitts, Our Faith and Theirs, (London: Challenge Books,
1990), p. 19
J. L. Mckenzie, Authority in the Church, (New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1966), p. III.
p. Ill
J. L. McKenzie, 1978, p. 843.
Cfr. M. Glazier and M. K. Hellwig, eds., The Modern Catholic
Encyclopaedia,, (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press,
1994), p. 394.
Cfr. E. A. Livingstine, ed., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), p.
193.
p. 160.
p. 160.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, St. Mary's Kansas, The
Church Teaches: Documents of the Church in English
Translation, (Rockford: TAN Books, 1973) p. 93, no, 200.
p. 93, no. 200.
p. 93ff.
Ibidem.
Ibidem
Ibidem.
A. Dulles, "Papal Authority in Roman Catholicism" in P. J.
McCord, ed., A Pope for all Christians? An Inquiry into the
Role of Peter in the Modern Church, (London: Billing & Sons
Ltd., 1976), p. 49f.
22. Ibidem,
23. J. L. McKenzie, 1966, p. III.
24. J. M. Ela,, My Faith as an African, (Maryknoll, New York:
Orbis Books, 1988), p. 61.
25. J. L. Mckenzie, 1966, p. 112f.
26. D. James, Authority and Institution: A Study in Church Crisis,
(New York: Bruce Publications, 1994), 35 pp 17 & 20.
27. pp. 17&20
28. Y. Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Vol. 1: The Experience of
the Holy Spirit. (London: Geoffrey Chaman, 1983). p. 148.