Question about Matthew 18:19-20 and going to chruch

  • Thread starter Thread starter hvizsgyak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hvizsgyak

Guest
I am a big proponent of Catholic Church leaders trying to work out our differences with other Christian Denominations so we would become one body as Jesus wanted us. So at work when opportunities present themselves, I clear up any misconceptions others have of the Catholic Church. I been asked by some of my friends why I do this and I explain how Jesus prayed to the Father so his Apostles would remain one as Jesus was with the Father.

As usual, there are those who do not want the different Christian denomination to become one. They do not trust “organized religion”. They don’t belong to really any Church and they feel that one belief should not try to persuade others to join their Church. And to show their independence from any one Church they sight the Bible passage Matthew 18:19-20 “… For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” They feel if there are two or three people gathered together in Jesus’ name that is there Church. How can I respond to that (where I am tring to convince them that they should trust and belong to an “organized” Church?
 
hvizsgyak said:
… the midst of them." They feel if there are two or three people gathered together in Jesus’ name that is there Church. How can I respond to that (where I am tring to convince them that they should trust and belong to an “organized” Church?
Click to expand...
Jesus speaks of two or three, then one or two more, then the church. So clearly the church is larger than three. And here is is speaking to the Apostles when he states “whatsoever you shall bind upon earth”.
See the context of Matthew 18
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Click to expand...
Haydock Commentary
Ver. 17. Tell the church. This not only shews the order of fraternal correction, but also every man’s duty in submitting to the judgment of the Church. (Witham) — There cannot be a plainer condemnation of those who make particular creeds, and will not submit the articles of their belief to the judgment of the authority appointed by Christ. (Haydock)

Ver. 18. Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. The power of binding and loosing, which in a more eminent manner was promised to St. Peter, is here promised to the other apostles and their successors, bishops and priests. (Witham) — The power of binding and loosing, conferred on St. Peter, excelled that granted to the other apostles, inasmuch as to St. Peter, who was head and pastor of the whole Church, was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles, while these received no power over each other, much less over St. Peter. (Tirinus) — Priests receive a power not only to loose, but also to bind, as St. Ambrose writeth against the Novatians, who allowed the latter, but denied the former power to priests. (Lib. i. de pœnit. chap. ii.) (Bristow)
Click to expand...
 
hvizsgyak said:
s usual, there are those who do not want the different Christian denomination to become one.
Click to expand...
Well some Christians would like unity, but don’t accept Catholic teaching on several points such as papal infallibility, indulgences, statues, and many more. the Eastern Orthodox would like to see Roman Catholics adjust their teachings to be more in line with their thinking.
 
I like to ask people what they think about bishops. Do they agree that the Church Jesus started has bishops? Cite Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7, 1 Tim. 3:1-2, and Philippians 1:1. Have that conversation: the true Church, the New Testament Church, the one Jesus started and said to be part of, it has bihsops. It has people in charge. And you know what the Bible commands us to do to these bishops? Obey them and submit to them: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.” Heb. 13:17. If you don’t belong to a church you go to, one with structure and authority and people in charge, how do you follow this teaching? How do you belong to Jesus’s church, if you don’t have a bishop?

Doing this, I think, cuts right to the heart of non-denominationalism: Christianity is not a “do it yourself” religion. The Bible doesn’t teach us to do it ourselves. It says to have leaders and submit to them and obey them. Non-denominationalism can’t do that, therefore it can’t follow the Bible.
 
I realize there are some major differences between Catholics and other Christian Denominations and they may or may not be resolved but we should always continue to try for unity because Christ wanted it for us. I continue praying for unity. I feel people seeing the disunity in Christianity are uninspired to be a part of it.
 
Focusing on Matthew 18:20 only, the New American Bible I use has the footnote for this passage as guaranteeing the efficacy of the prayer of two or three people because Jesus would be in their presence.
But this would not constitute a church being established there, would it?
 
hvizsgyak said:
I realize there are some major differences between Catholics and other Christian Denominations and they may or may not be resolved but we should always continue to try for unity because Christ wanted it for us.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox are close to the Roman Catholics in teaching so it would not be difficult for Catholics to agree to union with the Eastern Orthodox. Unfortunately, Catholics will not budge from their position on various issues, which makes reunion difficult.
 
hvizsgyak said:
Focusing on Matthew 18:20 only, the New American Bible I use has the footnote for this passage as guaranteeing the efficacy of the prayer of two or three people because Jesus would be in their presence.
But this would not constitute a church being established there, would it?
Click to expand...
No. Now you are commenting on the “efficacy of the prayer” but that is not the same as the power to bind and loose sins, given to the Apostles.

Haydock Commentary
Ver. 19. That if two of you. From these words, we learn how superior is public to private prayer. The efficacy of the former is attributed to the presence of Christ in those assemblies. The Father, for his Son’s sake, will grant petitions thus offered. (Jansenius) — The fervour of one will supply for the weakness and distractions of the other.

Ver. 20. There am I in the midst of them. This is understood of such assemblies only, as are gathered in the name and authority of Christ; and in unity of the Church of Christ. (St. Cyprian, de Unitate Ecclesiæ.) (Challoner) — St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, and Euthymius explain the words in his name, thus, assembled by authority received from Christ, in the manner appointed by him, or for his sake, and seeking nothing by his glory. Hence we may see what confidence we may place in an œcumenical council lawfully assembled. (Tirinus) (St. Gregory, lib. vii. Regist. Epist. cxii.)
Click to expand...
 
Matt. 18:19-20, as has already been stated is about the efficacy of prayer. It is merely one passage in Scripture. However, we read the Bible as a whole. When read only one sentence in any book, do we know the what that book is about?
How can we know Christ unless we gather as His Body? We are His people. The Church is not a building, but the whole people of God. Together we are called to Eucharist, to celebrate the Saving power of the Resurrection.
In Acts 2, it states clearly that the newly baptized “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread, and to the prayers.”
In Timothy, chapter 3, St. Paul talks about the importance of deportment within the assembly and “this religion” to which we belong. In is in the assembly that we return to Calvary during the Mass, and partake of the Body and Blood of Our Lord as instituted at the Last Supper. It is during the assembly that we hear the Word proclaimed during the first half of the Mass. After Mass we are called to “love and serve the Lord,” strengthened as His people to the task to which each of us has been called.

The time we gather together in assembly for Mass does not mean that we do not pray at other times as well. We pray privately at home. We can use this passage to claim the intercessory power of the Saints. We gather for formal and informal prayer groups, such as the family rosary or parish novenas. God is in our midst when we pray. “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful.”
 
AlNg said:
40.png
hvizsgyak:
I realize there are some major differences between Catholics and other Christian Denominations and they may or may not be resolved but we should always continue to try for unity because Christ wanted it for us.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox are close to the Roman Catholics in teaching so it would not be difficult for Catholics to agree to union with the Eastern Orthodox. Unfortunately, Catholics will not budge from their position on various issues, which makes reunion difficult.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the Catholic position is that what theological differences there are between East and West are barely a barrier to reunion, if they are even a barrier at all. Many of our Orthodox brethren see the divide as being much wider. But you must see how your comment can be seen by Catholics as applying instead in the opposite direction, no?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)uts; you’ve given me good points that I can read up on. Because a lot of my Christian friends don’t follow the history of the Church, many think this is the normal way to belong to a church. It the message their church is preaching sounds good and makes them feel good then why go any where else. Very few try to intimately know Christ’ Church.

I know there are major differences between many of the main Christian Denominations and that is for the leaders of those Denominations to work them out so we all can be one. But for a lot of these smaller Protestant Churches that start up because of their leader’s interpretation of the Bible, in my eyes, that’s just ignorance or arrogance. They do not want to bow to the authority of the Church leaders who know the Truth. There energy could be better used in the True Church helping spread the Word to millions. We’ve got a bigger task to overcome and that’s secular humanism. Thanks again all of you for your help. God bless.
 
I think I understand your question. I realize that Catholic leaders need to be more open to meaningful differences with our Orthodox friends and the differences are not as simple as some Catholics leaders may make them out to be. My prayers are for the differences to be resolved quickly, peacefully, and permanently. And with the Orthodox Churches, I think this can become a reality (as long as leaders keep Our Lord in mind and peace in their hearts).
 
Jesus made that promise to the apostles …so if thats the case that only makes the catholic argument stronger…since he has been with us for 2000 years…if Jesus made us that promise that means what we teach is valid…jesus wanted and organized religion…read the book of acts i see an organized institution there with a hierarchy…jesus wants us to be one …having your own beliefs causes division and heresy
 
Wesrock said:
My understanding of the Catholic position is that what theological differences there are between East and West are barely a barrier to reunion,
Click to expand...
If, from the Catholic POV, the differences are no barrier to reunion, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church drop the filioque from the creed in the western liturgy and revisit its teaching on papal supremacy? These differences are important issues to the Eastern Orthodox and I thought that they see them as a barrier to reunion ? The Orthodox agree to papal primacy of honor only and refer back to the situation as it was before the split. They also insist on saying the Nicene creed as it was said universally in east and west before 700 A.D.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Wesrock:
My understanding of the Catholic position is that what theological differences there are between East and West are barely a barrier to reunion,
Click to expand...
If, from the Catholic POV, the differences are no barrier to reunion, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church drop the filioque from the creed in the western liturgy and revisit its teaching on papal supremacy? These differences are important issues to the Eastern Orthodox and I thought that they see them as a barrier to reunion ? The Orthodox agree to papal primacy of honor only and refer back to the situation as it was before the split. They also insist on saying the Nicene creed as it was said universally in east and west before 700 A.D.
Click to expand...
This will help you to be better informed of the efforts being made:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...al/ecumenical-documents-and-news-releases.cfm
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Vico:
This will help you to be better informed of the efforts being made:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...al/ecumenical-documents-and-news-releases.cfm
Click to expand...
I don’t see where it says that theological differences are not a barrier to reunion?
Click to expand...
You won’t. The last meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was in 2014. Some highlights:
  • five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times)
  • In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.
  • Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for the ecumenicity of a council.
  • Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html

From The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue?:
“Our discussions and our common statement will not, by themselves, put an end to centuries of disagreement among our Churches. We do hope, however, that they will contribute to the growth of mutual understanding and respect, and that in God’s time our Churches will no longer find a cause for separation in the way we think and speak about the origin of that Spirit, whose fruit is love and peace (see Gal 5.22).”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top