What does this Verse Mean to Non Catholics

[Publisher]

I’m talking about two individual believers, ie. brothers in Christ.

Jesus gives a method for resolving these disputes.

However, his guidance only makes sense if there is a common understanding regarding who the Church is.

The Methodist and Baptist in this example have no common Church hierarchy that can resolve their dispute.

Oh, I understand, but “take it to the church” doesn’t necessarily imply the “church hierachy”…their dispute could be taken before a common group of believers in Christ(the church) to assist…and “Christian mediation” is one such body.

But as has been noted above, this passage most likely is concerned with members within the same congregation.

 

[Publisher]

In reading this thread I have a question…if a Latin Catholic had a dispute with an Eastern Rite Catholic…who would be the “hierarchy” in the dispute?

I’m assuming since the question was asked, there must be a cut and dry set of procedures the Catholic church has on record to handle such disputes.

 

[robgrassley]

robgrassley;4271130:

For whatever it’s worth, welcome, at least from me. I am actually coming up that way for the North Carolina game Saturday, but I won’t be cheering for the Heels. I’m a huge Notre Dame fan. How odd…a Southern guy cheering for a mid-western Catholic school instead of a school in the backyard of the Bible Belt!

I never heard of such a thing. My dead Irish Catholic grandfather would get a real kick out of that.
I, in fact, was trying to bribe my way in with a freind of who season tickets to go to the game. Notre Dame, being Irish Catholic (in case you didn’t know, Irish Catholic is its own brand of Catholicism) has always been my sweet heart as well.
Well that does it, your okay in my book.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I know what you are asking, and it actually is a very good question and is not a baiting one at all.

The question gets to the heart of how Jesus designed the church.

Whatever the answer is, it must consider all cases where this Scripture can possibly be applied.

Now I it is still a big leap to go from this Scripture to “The Roman Catholic church is the one true church and everyone else is inferior”. However, that does negate the fact that this is a good question.

True enough.

I think we can definitely conclude:

That Jesus considered the Church to be a single authority at the time he made the comment.

So, we must ask:

Was it part of the plan for there to be multiple Churches?

If not, is the first Church that Jesus was referring to still in existence?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Let me ask you this:

When two Catholics have a conflict–say one of them rear-ends the other in the church parking lot (I’m being generous by giving you a conflict that actually arose on church property, even though that’s way too narrow an interpretation of what Matt. 18 is talking about), do they take it to the Church? Or do they sue each other in a secular court? If the latter, then you have no business quoting this passage against us. In fact none of us follow it.

Edwin

That’s a good question, but it really doesn’t apply to my point.

My point is that Jesus indicated that the Church was a singular authority which all Christians should listen to.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In reading this thread I have a question…if a Latin Catholic had a dispute with an Eastern Rite Catholic…who would be the “hierarchy” in the dispute?

I’m assuming since the question was asked, there must be a cut and dry set of procedures the Catholic church has on record to handle such disputes.

The point is that there is a single authority known as the Church.

The Catholic Church is hierarchical, and the final authority is the pope.

 

[Publisher]

The point is that there is a single authority known as the Church.

The Catholic Church is hierarchical, and the final authority is the pope.

That is understood, but those of us of the Protestant persuasion don’t subscribe to the “hierarchical” understanding of the “Church”.

So if an Eastern Catholic and a Latin Catholic had a dispute, it would be settled by the Pope? Does he settle many disputes between members of the various rites of the Catholic church? How often?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That is understood, but those of us of the Protestant persuasion don’t subscribe to the “hierarchical” understanding of the “Church”.

QUOTE]

Given your understanding, how do you explain this verse?

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;4273200:

That is understood, but those of us of the Protestant persuasion don’t subscribe to the “hierarchical” understanding of the “Church”.

QUOTE]

Given your understanding, how do you explain this verse?

From post #2

Among Friends the church is the assembled body of believers. The “Church” exists where two or three are gathered together in his name.

If a Friend has issue with another Friend, it is brought before the meeting and probably would be put before a “Clearness Committee” to discuss, pray and meditate upon, then their recommendation would be given to the Meeting. The Meeting would then reach some consensus and give their “judgement”. In some Meetings the appointed Elders would “elder” the offending Friend…in some cases if that Friend persisted in an “unQuakerly” fashion, they would be “read out of Meeting”.

To me it’s clear it is the local meeting of the church/assembly/congregation/community that is spoken of here…but I’m not a Catholic, so I wouldn’t necessarily hold to your views on the subject.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4273244:

From post #2

Sorry, thought you were a new poster on this thread.

To me it’s clear it is the local meeting of the church/assembly/congregation/community that is spoken of here…but I’m not a Catholic, so I wouldn’t necessarily hold to your views on the subject.

I think that the implicit assumption is that all believers will know what is meant by the Church and that it must be a single authority if this instruction is to have any meaning.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;4273326:

I think that the implicit assumption is that all believers will know what is meant by the Church and that it must be a single authority if this instruction is to have any meaning.

That is a Catholic assumption…but those of us who are not Catholic haven’t come to that “impicit assumption”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4273341:

That is a Catholic assumption…but those of us who are not Catholic haven’t come to that “impicit assumption”

I understand.

 

[tGette]

Please guys…fix the “quoting”

It has kind of gotten confusing.

 

[Lilyflower]

CHESTERTONRULES;4269806:

No you are not. You’re using a verse for the purpose of going after protestants, and then you are hiding behind the Bible. Jesus was speaking to men and their stubborness and refusal to forgive and work together through things. You are using it as an excuse and justification so you can throw stones at protestants. If that is how you want to reat us, so be it. At least we can know who to ignore.

Whether or not the allegation is true [and I doubt that it is], I have experienced vastly too many instances and examples of where non-Catholics are gunning for me only because I am Catholic.

I have never gunned for anyone. Neither so far as I know has any other Catholics. Not saying none do, only that I have never met any.

Off thread, I was once set up for a hefty custodial sentence through industrial sabortage which by the grace of God failed. All it succeeded in doing was to bankrupt the company. But I was set up only because I was Catholic.

Now to be so determined to put a man away just because he is Catholic, is in my view pure evil. I have never known or heard of a Catholic to do that to anyone!

Therefore, I believe the question is a genuine one.

Blessings and peace

 

[benedictus2]

Whether or not the allegation is true [and I doubt that it is], I have experienced vastly too many instances and examples of where non-Catholics are gunning for me only because I am Catholic.

I have never gunned for anyone. Neither so far as I know has any other Catholics. Not saying none do, only that I have never met any.

Just think of the vitriol that people like Scott Hahn and Thomas Howard was subjected to when they converted.

I think the difference is, while we look at protestants as separated brothers, they look at us as children of the whore of Babylon.

Here, is an example. At dinner, an Anglican friend of mine said that he would consider maybe converting to Methodist or Baptist or any other variant of protestantism but he would never become a Catholic " as that would be like moving to the OTHER SIDE". And yet he says that he considers Catholics christians as well.

In a heated discussion, he spurted the line that “the Roman Church was founded by an edict”. And this is coming from an ex- protestant minister who did 4 years of Theology. I wonder what sort of education they get taught in the Protestant seminaries.

When I gave him an article about the edict of Milan, he would not even read it saying it does not matter. There he was immersed in the lie over this ignorant claim and he could not even be bothered to read the truth.

 

[onenow1]

Let me ask you this:

When two Catholics have a conflict–say one of them rear-ends the other in the church parking lot (I’m being generous by giving you a conflict that actually arose on church property, even though that’s way too narrow an interpretation of what Matt. 18 is talking about), do they take it to the Church? Or do they sue each other in a secular court? If the latter, then you have no business quoting this passage against us. In fact none of us follow it.

Edwin

Quote = onenow1 Alstate ?

 

[benedictus2]

That is understood, but those of us of the Protestant persuasion don’t subscribe to the “hierarchical” understanding of the “Church”.

/quote]

But was the Church that Christ instituted heirarchical? Jesus didn’t need to single out Peter but He did.
He could have on all you my disciples, I am building my Chruch.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

/quote]

But was the Church that Christ instituted heirarchical? Jesus didn’t need to single out Peter but He did.
He could have on all you my disciples, I am building my Chruch.

Exactly.

When Jesus used the word church he meant something.

We can use the bible, as well as the writings of the early church, to determine what he meant.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;4273200:

That is understood, but those of us of the Protestant persuasion don’t subscribe to the “hierarchical” understanding of the “Church”.

/quote]

But was the Church that Christ instituted heirarchical? Jesus didn’t need to single out Peter but He did.

He could have on all you my disciples, I am building my Chruch.

Again, Peter’s role from a Protestant perspective is not the same as it is from a Catholics perspective…you read “hierarchical” in these verses, Protestants do not.

Also, a Protestant would understand Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God as being the Rock upon which the church(body of believers) is built, similar to the Orthodox…not on Peter himself…your position is a Catholic one, and that is how you read the verse…we read it differently.

Our starting positions are different, one must make assumptions from both traditions to come up with their understandings…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

benedictus2;4274376:

Again, Peter’s role from a Protestant perspective is not the same as it is from a Catholics perspective…you read “hierarchical” in these verses, Protestants do not.

Also, a Protestant would understand Peter’s confession as being the Rock, similar to the Orthodox…not on Peter himself…your position is a Catholic one, and that is how you read the verse…we read it differently.

One perspective is right and one is wrong.

Questions that I can’t get protestants to answer:

Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Rock?

Why did Jesus give Simon alone the keys to the Kingdom?