Episode 79: Year B – Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity
In this episode, we confine ourselves to the Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, Year B, taken from Matthew 28:16-20. There are several details that relate to a variety of apologetical topics, two of which deal specifically with this Sunday’s solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity: The trinitarian formula for baptism and the revelation of the Trinity. The other apologetical topics that come to fore are the Sacrament of Reconciliation and apostolic succession.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, we’re going to confine ourselves to the Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of the Holy Trinity, Year B, taken from Matthew 28:16-20. There are several details that relate to a variety of apologetical topics, two of which deal specifically with this Sunday’s solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity: The trinitarian formula for baptism and the revelation of the Trinity. The other apologetical topics that come to fore are the Sacrament of Reconciliation and apostolic succession.
Let’s start with the gospel itself. Here’s what we read:
The eleven disciples went to Galilee,
to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
When they all saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
Then Jesus approached and said to them,
“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
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,
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
The first detail is Jesus’ instruction for the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Any Christian who cares about baptism at least must affirm that the trinitarian formula is a valid formula for baptism.
Notice how in Matthew 28:19 Jesus is privately addressing only the eleven (Matt. 28:16) whom he is sending to perform baptisms. In context, it makes sense that Jesus would be telling them exactly how to do it.
Also, some have pointed to the active voice used in the Greek: “baptizing [active present participle] them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” In other words, when you engage in the act of baptizing, say, “In the name of the Father, etc.”
That this is an instruction as how to baptize becomes even more evident when this text is compared to commands for folks to be baptized “in the name of Jesus” found elsewhere in the Bible.
Contrast Matthew 28:19 with, for example, Peter’s injunction in Acts 2. That takes place in a public setting and is given to those who would receive baptism—not to those who would be performing it. It would not seem to be as vitally important for those receiving the sacrament to know the precise formula as for those performing it, right?
Moreover, Peter’s injunction was not premeditated. Instead, he is quickly enumerating what must be done to be saved in response to those present who, upon hearing his preaching, were “cut to the heart” and asked him, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (v.37). It’s unreasonable to think that Peter would be giving precise instructions as to the words that must be used in baptism when he’s merely saying, “You want to be saved? Okay, here are the things you need to do—repent and get baptized.”
Jesus’s command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is also distinct from Peter’s command for Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). As on the Day of Pentecost, Luke records what Peter says to those who would receive baptism, not those who would administer it.
Also, Luke does not record what Peter said specifically. He merely narrates in summary form, “And he [Peter] commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t seem that Luke intends to say that the words “in the name of Jesus” were Peter’s instructions for the actual words to be used in administering baptism.
Other “in the name of Jesus” passages, such as Acts 8:14-16; 19:5, are even further removed from the nature of Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 28:19. In fact, they aren’t instructions at all.
Each instance is merely a passing reference to the fact that some were baptized: “They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16); “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). It’s unlikely that such cursory remarks were meant as an articulation of the exact words that were used for those baptisms.
Again, when compared to all these passages that speak of being baptized “in the name of Jesus,” Matthew 28:19 and the trinitarian formula is manifestly revealed as an instruction as how to baptize.
The second apologetical topic that this trinitarian formula suggests is the Trinity itself. That Jesus doesn’t speak of a plurality of “names” but rather a single “name” reveals that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all identical to the same divine nature, since “name” signifies power or nature. This means Jesus is revealing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three distinct beings. Rather, all three are identical to the infinite pure being that we arrive at through philosophical reasoning—that’s to say, they are one in being.
Now, when we profess this, inevitably an objection rises, one that we’ve already dealt with in episode 28 of the Sunday Catholic Word, the episode for the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, Year A. However, it’s worth addressing it again.
Here’s the objection: if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all three identical to the divine being because it’s revealed they are all God, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit must be identical to each other. For example, if a is equal to b, and b is equal to c, then a is equal to c. This is known as the transitivity of identity—the identity that a has to b transfers over to c. So, it doesn’t seem that we can affirm all three divine persons as identical to the divine being and yet be distinct.
Aquinas dealt with this very objection in article three of question 28 in his Summa Theologiae. Here’s his answer in a nutshell.
Two things are identical to each other when they both are identical to a third thing if and only if the identity that each of the things has with the third thing is real and logical—that’s to say, they have an identity with the third thing in reality and in thought (can’t think of one without logically thinking of the other). Aquinas uses the example of the identity between a tunic and a garment. They are identical to a piece of cloth not only in reality—a tunic really is a garment—but also conceptually (you can’t think of one without the other). Consequently, you can’t affirm or deny anything about a tunic without at the same time affirming or denying something about a garment.
But if the identity that two things have with a third thing is true only in reality but not conceptually, then the two things are not identical to each other based on their identity with the third thing. To illustrate this Aquinas uses the example of motion considered as action and passion. Action is motion conceived of as originating from a substance and passion is motion conceived of as being received in a substance. Given that the conceptual content of motion conceived of as action is different than the conceptual content of motion conceived of as passion, they are logically distinct from motion. Neither action nor passion entirely exhausts the meaning of motion. For this reason action is not identical to passion. Yet, action and passion are identical to motion in reality.
Similarly, the three persons of the Trinity are identical to the divine being in reality, which is pure being itself. Yet, they are not logically identical to the divine being. The divine being conceived of as begetter, which is the Father, is conceptually distinct from the divine being conceived of as begotten, which is the Son, or the divine being conceived of as being spirated, which is the Holy Spirit. So, there is a conceptual distinction between the three persons and the divine being, a distinction that we make in the mind. But in reality the three persons are identical to the divine being. Given that the identity between the three persons and the divine being is an identity that holds only in reality but not conceptually, the three persons are not identical to each other.
So, just because all three persons are identical to the divine being it doesn’t mean that all three persons are identical. They are distinct, although identical in essence or being.
So, there you have some trinitarian apologetics.
There are a few more apologetical topics that this Gospel passage relates to.
Consider how Jesus says, “I will be with you always until the end of the age.” And he does so within the immediate context of giving them the instruction to teach all the things that he commanded them.
This implies two things: 1) that the teaching ministry would continue beyond the 11 there and 2) that Jesus would always remain with such a teaching ministry.
The continuation of the teaching ministry is implied because the apostles wouldn’t all live until “the end of the age”—that’s to say, the end of time. So, for this promise to be fulfilled, there would have to be other teachers who stand in the place of the apostles. Both Scripture, per 1 Timothy 3:1-3, and history, per the writings of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, confirm that bishops, the successors to the apostles, were such teachers.
Now, given the implication of the continued teaching ministry in the bishops who succeeded the apostles, Christ promises to remain with such a “magisterium” until the end of the age. This, of course, relates to the gift of infallibility. Christ will always be present with his magisterium and thereby will always ensure that this living teaching authority will not lead us astray in those teachings that we need to believe as being part of, or intrinsically related to Jesus, the fullness of the Father’s revelation.
So, in this one detail we have the apologetical topics of apostolic succession and the gift of infallibility.
Finally, note Jesus’ instruction, “teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”
Many of you listening right now probably have heard this sort challenge to the Sacrament of Reconciliation: “Why would I confess my sins to a priest when I can confess them straight to God?”
A simple response, which illustrates the problematic logic involved, could be: “Why should have the first century Christians gone to the apostles to receive the truth of Jesus’ instruction when they could have gone straight to God?”
With this question, it immediately becomes evident that the problem really is not about going to an ordained minister of Jesus to receive the blessing of the forgiveness of sins, since we do that to receive the blessing of truth.
The real question is whether Jesus intends for us to do so. Clearly, Matthew 28:19 reveals that Jesus intends for us to receive his instruction through the ministry of the apostles. Perhaps it’s the same for receiving the forgiveness of sins.
Of course, as we’ve had opportunities to speak about before, Jesus does intend for us to receive the blessing of the forgiveness of sins through his ordained ministers. And here is where John 20:23 comes into play: “Whosoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whosoever sins you retain, they are retained.”
So, Matthew 28:20 provides us with apologetical arrow in the quiver: an arrow to direct at a common Protestant challenge to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, Year B is not wanting when it comes to apologetical material. There’s stuff here for
- The trinitarian formula for baptism,
- The Blessed Trinity itself,
- The Magisterium and Apostolic succession,
- The gift of infallibility, and
- The Sacrament of Reconciliation
As always, thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!