Luke 9:49-50 and the Invisible Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter tom25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tom25

Guest
I know the Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Invisible Church, but when I look at Luke 9:49-50,

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)

It strikes me as one of the stronger evidences for the Invisible Church, but since the RCC denies that, I would like to know how the RCC interprets that passage.
 
I know the Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Invisible Church, but when I look at Luke 9:49-50,

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)

It strikes me as one of the stronger evidences for the Invisible Church, but since the RCC denies that, I would like to know how the RCC interprets that passage.
Verse 49: speaks of the gift of the ability to exorcise demons.

We forbade him. S. John having the most love for his Lord, and being particularly beloved by him, thought all were to be excluded from these gifts, who were not obedient to his divine Master. S. Aug. — But we must remember, that not the minister is the author of these miracles, but the grace which is in him, who performs these wonders by virtue of the power of Christ.

verse 50:

Forbid him not. Our Lord is not moved by this event, to teach us that perfect virtue entertains no thoughts of revenge, and that anger cannot be found where the fulness of charity reigns. The weak must not be driven away, but assisted. Let the breast of the religious man be ever unmoved by passion, and the mind of the generous undisturbed by desires of revenge. S. Ambrose.
 
Because there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Eph. 4:5) and because Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13), there is only One Church, and all who are members of Christ’s Body are members of the Church. Tragically in our day, as a result of human failings throughout the history of the Church, many of her members are “imperfectly joined” with the Church. Today we commonly refer to these non-Catholic Christians as our “separated brethren.” (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO) This is not the same as saying that the church to which Jesus referred in passages like “take it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17) and “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18) is only a spiritual affiliation of like-minded people.

Jesus’ words and the actions of the Apostles (Acts 1:26, 4:35, 11, 15-16), clearly indicate the existence of an authoritative body, a body which was responsible for such novelties as the deaconate and the presbytery (Acts 6 and 14), the establishing of conditions of conversion/initiation of non-Jews (Acts 15), the condemnation of heretics (3 John), and, as time went on, the transfer of the Sabbath obligation to Sunday, the determination of which written documents of the New Testament era were inspired Scripture, the credal expressions of the truths of the Incarnation and the Trinity, etc.

While acknowledging and rejoicing in the faith we share with our separated brethren, we continue to pray and work for the unity for which Jesus prayed at the Last Supper (John 17), a unity which will be visible, as it will stand as a witness to the world (v. 21).

Hope this helps?
 
I know the Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Invisible Church, but when I look at Luke 9:49-50,

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)

It strikes me as one of the stronger evidences for the Invisible Church, but since the RCC denies that, I would like to know how the RCC interprets that passage.
…here’s the problem with that invisible church:

1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with** the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:1-5)

1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2:1-4)

…if it was an invisible church, why would Jesus make such a fuzz about the gathering, could the Holy Spirit (being God) not find the Disciples wherever they were?

…and why would Jesus add to His Disciples more members?:

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:40-41)

…as for those who were not part of Jesus’ followers, here’s a different take:

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
(St. Matthew 12:30)

4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (St. John 15:4-6)

It if quite possible that thousands or hundreds of thousands well-intended people be intent on representing Christ and His Church; sadly, due to human nature, it is more plausible for a mere hundred or even dozen or so people to pronounce very different and contradicting theologies in the name of Christ and His Church… considering the billions on Earth, do you still think it possible that Christ had it wrong when He determined to implement His Plan through His Founded Community (Ekklesia)?

Conversely, the Church was never known as the invisible Way–it was always those of the Way (Jews did not want to mention the name Christ) who, extremely visible, were a thorn on them that they were bent on exterminating (check out Saul’s letter/s to apprehend Christ’s followers); the Church has always been a visible Body of Christians–as St. Paul stated God is a God of order not disorder!

Maran atha!

Angel**
 
And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)
I’ve been itching to follow this topic to see further discussion, but just to chime in, how many protestants do you know of who conduct exorcisms? 😉
Because this verse specifically states casting out demons, not teaching, not preaching, not teaching differently, not preaching differently. Hope this helps.
 
I know the Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Invisible Church, but when I look at Luke 9:49-50,

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)

It strikes me as one of the stronger evidences for the Invisible Church, but since the RCC denies that, I would like to know how the RCC interprets that passage.
The passage says more about the Jews intolerance of outsiders, tendancy to form exclusive groups and love of power than it does about the Church which was yet to be established. Note that John’'s question was in reply to what took place in the preceeding verses re. who was the greatest.

An argument arose among the disciples about which of them was the greatest. Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest.” Then John said in reply, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company.” Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:46-50)

This was after the disciple tried to cast out a demon themselves but couldn’t (verse 39). Jesus’ reply was to cast out the demon himself and to tell his own disciples were part of a “wicked and perverse generation” (verse 40). Just after this, John asks Jesus if he wants them to rain down fire on Samaria and kill everyone and Jesus rebukes him.

Instead of worrying about power and who was the greatest, the man casting out demons in Christ’s name was serving his fellow man, while the disciples argued about who was greatest and who could command the most power. The crux of the whole chapter is summed up in verse “For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest.”

-Tim-
 
I feel I should probably clarify, when I think of Invisible Church, I hold the notion of churches being in communion where the word is properly taught and that sacraments are rightly administered. Not a hypothetical unity that cannot be visibly seen.

Tim, I have never heard that approach to the passage. I am curious though, attempting to follow thought, wouldn’t a church that is worship God and serving people be just as OK in God’s eyes as a church that has an apostolic succession?

PS - ESMD, do you mean aside from Pentacostals? 🙂
 
I feel I should probably clarify, when I think of Invisible Church, I hold the notion of churches being in communion where the word is properly taught and that sacraments are rightly administered. Not a hypothetical unity that cannot be visibly seen.

(…)

PS - ESMD, do you mean aside from Pentacostals? 🙂
Okay then so the unity needs to be visible. 👍 And the sacraments? What are those and how many are there? 🙂

Hmm, never heard about Pentacostals doing such before; most of my real-life discussion “experience” is with calvinists/evangelicals. 🤷 Other than that I’m a simple poster on CAF.
 
Tim, I have never heard that approach to the passage. I am curious though, attempting to follow thought, wouldn’t a church that is worship God and serving people be just as OK in God’s eyes as a church that has an apostolic succession?
No, because the second person of the Trinity took on flesh once. God was born into the world once. Mary gave birth to only one Christ. And Christ had only one body. And his body is the Church.

You can discuss the nature of Christ’s body - the Church - but any discussion of the nature of that body (apostolic succession, visible, hierarchical, spiritual union, etc) must be predicated on the fact that Christ had one body and so therefor there can only be one Church. No matter what that Church is, there is but one of them.

In response to your original question re Luke 9:49-50, I would like to point out Luke 11:23.

*He that is not against you is for you. (Luke 9:50)

He who is not with me is against me. He who does not gather with me scatters. (Luke 11:23)*

See what is happening? We are taking verses completely out of context. We have to consider many things in order to come to a properer understanding of Scripture. Who was Jesus speaking to - the disciples, apostles, the 12, the crowd, Pharisees? What was the context - was he making reference to a political or social custom that we are unfamiliar with, like the way a debtor’s prison operated or civil courts which operated at the city gate? Was Jesus quoting Old Testament scripture? Paul was famous for that.

I’ll leave the example there and actually, it has got my interest piqued. I notice that in chapter 9 he is talking about being agains “You” and in chapter 11 he is talking about being against “Me.” Hmmm… :hmmm:

-Tim-
 
Sorry, didn’t address your question directly.

A Chruch without apostolic succession would not be as good as a church with apostolic succesion. God revealed his intent to establish a kingdom on earth as a visible, hierarchical structure - prime minister, other sub ministers, etc - throughout Old Testament history and into his own ministry when he appointed Peter as the prime minister. That is God’s plan. We must follow it.

-Tim-
 
Invisible Churches are the best because you don’t know they’re there and can just ignore them. It’s also fun to egg and tp them.
 
The term “Church” is another term for the “Kingdom of God”, the “Kingdom established by God” when he had his Son anointed at His Baptism (Just as David was anointed as King by Samuel). And just as David had a band of loyal followers as he kept ahead of Saul, so Jesus had his first loyal citizens with the 12 (11).

Jesus was not invisible. The 12 were the beginning of his Kingdom (and one of them, though unbelieving and deadly, was also a true member of his Kingdom, he was a visible citizen of the Kingdom - Judas).

There is only one Kingdom established by God. It is eternal, meaning some citizens are here on earth, some in purgatory, some glorified. There is not a Lutheran Kingdom, and a Baptist Kingdom, and a Pentecostal Kingdom, and a Catholic Kingdom. (we should never have picked up on the word ‘Church’ - it has allowed us to miss the point of there being “One” People established by God.)

Peter was appointed (“I give you the keys of my Kingdom” - “prime minister” on earth) and if we take Jesus seriously as our King, we have to regard Peter and his successors with the respect of knowing that Jesus is backing them, and he gave them His Spirit so that they would not fail (no matter how many failings they had).

All the people around you in Mass on Sunday are your fellow, visible, citizens. This is in virtue of their baptism. And the magesterium, as visible agents of their King, ensure that the sacraments are “ordinarily”, regularly, visibly administered to each of you and your fellow citizens.

Think of the word “Kingdom” when you hear of the various “churches” (denominations). Then ask, is there more than one Kingdom?
“Church” should be reserved for the local congregation (Greek word for churches in that sense was “assemblies”)

John Martin
 
I know the Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Invisible Church, but when I look at Luke 9:49-50,

And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)

It strikes me as one of the stronger evidences for the Invisible Church, but since the RCC denies that, I would like to know how the RCC interprets that passage.
You have to remember that Jesus sent out 70 disciples (Luke 10) whith authority to heal the sick and cast out demons, so the 12 apostles weren’t the only ones capable of performing miracle. In addition, Paul wrote about the resurected Jesus appearing to the 12, then to 500 brothers at one time, and then **all the apostles **(1 Corinthians 15:1-7). Were “the 12” and “all the apostles” two different groups, could “the 12” refer to a group other than the apostles (since Judas was dead and there would only be 11). The Gospel of Mark 9:39 says no man can do a great work in Christ’s name and then quickly speak evil of Him, this lone exorcist got his authority from God, not apostolic succession.
 
Here are my two cents. I think that the main problem in this passage, specially indicated in Lk 9:49 is that the disciples were concerned not because the man was following Christ, but because “he followeth not with us.”

John is putting the emphasis not on the man following Jesus and doing good in His name, but on the man not being among them, not being part of the special “us” of the 12. Notice how John said “he followeth not WITH US”, he didn’t say “he does not follow YOU”.

Taking the verse in the context of the chapter starting with verse 41, we see that it all started with the disciples not being able two cast out a demon. Jesus tells his disciples before rebuking the evil spirit in the boy “O faithless and perverse generation” (Lk 9:41). Later we see in Lk 9:46 that “there entered a thought into them [the disciples], which of them should be greater” and Jesus saw “the thoughts of their hearts”. When we consider all these verses together, we see that Jesus saw the sin of pride in the disciples’ hearts! They felt they were better, the thought they deserved to be among the greatest in Heaven. (Lk 9:46). But Jesus told them instead they had to be like children to be the greatest in heaven (Lk 9:47-48). And what does it mean? That the disciples should leave aside their pride and become humble like little children!

But hold on. Even after this, John and his brother wanted God to destroy a city because they did not received THEM (Lk 9:52-54)! I can almost see James and John arguing on their way back to Jesus “how dare those Samaritans not to receive us! Don’t they know who we are?” See? It was all about THEM, over and over again is only about the disciples, not about Jesus and his message. That’s why Jesus responds to them in Lk 9:55 “you know not of what spirit you are.”

Once we have this context clear, we can now understand Jesus words in Lk 9:50 “Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you.”

Jesus is nipping in the bud the sin of pride among his disciples. The whole context of the passage does not show Jesus setting the foundation for a merely “spiritual church”. Besides, how did this man know how to cast out demons by the power of Jesus name? Why did this man know he could even do that? More over, why were not the disciples, that were so close to Jesus, able to cast out one demon and this complete stranger could cast out “demons”? Can we assume that this man did follow Jesus and his teachings, being part of those thousands in the crowd, but did not befriend the disciples? If the man was able to cast out demons in Jesus’ name that tells me that he had his heart in the right place. Otherwise his prayers would have been as ineffective as the disciples’ to cast out demons. Go figure the hit to the disciples pride! They looked like fools! The stranger man could cast out demons and they, the special ones closest to the Lord, could not! 😃

Now, there are several places in Scriptures in favor of the visible church, as others have already pointed out, but two places in particular come to my mind: Eph 4:3-5 “Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.One Lord, one faith, one baptism” and then Jesus words in John 17:17-22 “Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.”

For the world to believe it is necessary for the church to be visible! I’m not denying here the invisible dimension of the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant, but the concept of just an invisible church will not give testimony of Christ as to move the non-believers to believe!

Think about this, the spiritual things might be concepts and realities easily accepted by believers, but maybe not for the non-believers. When they see such disparity and disagreement even among Christians about what we believe they are just going to think we are a bunch of crazy people, proclaiming we believe in the same Christ and reading the same Bible and sometimes having totally opposite interpretations of the same text!

if the church does not have a total and complete unity like it says in Ephesians, if we don’t have one hope, one faith, one spirit and if the world cannot visibly see this unity as the verses from John 17 say, how will the world believe that the Father sent Jesus? 😉
 
For the world to believe it is necessary for the church to be visible! I’m not denying here the invisible dimension of the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant, but the concept of just an invisible church will not give testimony of Christ as to move the non-believers to believe!
This is correct. An invisible Church is impossible to even locate in the first place.

When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:48-49)

Jesus’ own mother and father look for him and could not find him Jesus is effectively invisible - he cannot be seen. He cannot be found. And where do they finally see him? In his Father’s house. That is where we get to see Jesus, in Church. If the Church is invisible, then we cannot find Jesus.

And if the Church is invisible, then it is also unlocatable, inaudible, unintelligible, undiscernible, etc.

-Tim-
 
Matthew 5:14-16 says:

You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
15
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.
16
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

This is also in reference to the Church. It must be visible so that the light of Christ may be seen by all who seek Him.
 
The term “Church” is another term for the “Kingdom of God”, the “Kingdom established by God” when he had his Son anointed at His Baptism

[snip]

Think of the word “Kingdom” when you hear of the various “churches” (denominations). Then ask, is there more than one Kingdom?
“Church” should be reserved for the local congregation (Greek word for churches in that sense was “assemblies”)
Hmm. That is clearly not the way it is being used in Acts 9:31, where ecclesia is singular. . . (I think I agree with your fundamental point, that there is only One Body of Christ - but I don’t think it’s right to say that the word “church” should be - or ever has been - reserved for the local congregation.
 
…I am curious though, attempting to follow thought, wouldn’t a church that is worship God and serving people be just as OK in God’s eyes as a church that has an apostolic succession?
…it would seem that there would be no problem… but, wait, aren’t Jews (those who practice the Judaism) a “community of worshipers?” (check Romans 9:1 thru 11:32)

…and the Jehovah Witnesses… do they not worship Jehovah and are they not a community?

…Mormons? …Moslems? …Buddists?.. and what about that oriental group (can’t recall the name) that was televised where they include a segment of worshipers that represents the greater religious bodies–each represented by their respective priests in full colored garments–that’s like a cornucopia of worshipers in one community, could that not be the optimum invisible church?

…as that old movie stated… “go back to the beginning!”

…if we go back to the beginning (no not Luther and his fellow reformers); the actual beginning, you know Christ, the Apostles, the Apostles Successors… that’s the format instituted by God!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
You have to remember that Jesus sent out 70 disciples (Luke 10) whith authority to heal the sick and cast out demons, so the 12 apostles weren’t the only ones capable of performing miracle. In addition, Paul wrote about the resurected Jesus appearing to the 12, then to 500 brothers at one time, and then **all the apostles **(1 Corinthians 15:1-7). Were “the 12” and “all the apostles” two different groups, could “the 12” refer to a group other than the apostles (since Judas was dead and there would only be 11). The Gospel of Mark 9:39 says no man can do a great work in Christ’s name and then quickly speak evil of Him, this lone exorcist got his authority from God, not apostolic succession.
…just a point: Scriptures speaks of Jesus appearing to the Eleven, not the Twelve; interesting though, it mentions that He appeared to Kephas and the others (quite interestingly); also, Acts establishes that another disciple which was with them from the beginning took Judas’ place, why did do you think that Scriptures take time to reveal little snipplets as such? The Succession of the Apostles is established as the continuity of Christ’s Mystical Body is established!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
=tom25;8040270]I know the Catholic Church rejects the teaching of the Invisible Church, but when I look at Luke 9:49-50,
And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (Douay-Rheims)
It strikes me as one of the stronger evidences for the Invisible Church, but since the RCC denies that, I would like to know how the RCC interprets that passage.
***Happy to oblidge my friend:

Notice please that this person was doing this IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. Then hear wht Christ say’s about such acts.Mark.9: 39 "But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me”

A CURRENT example of this very thing is the Entire Protestant communion. Some more faithfully than others; BUT all “in the name of Christ”***

**Phil.2: 2 ** “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

**Eph. 4: 1-7 “**I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2: 18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens*** with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,*** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

God Bless you my friend,
Pat
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top