Seeing Jesus in Everyone

[uther]

Where and when did this teaching originate and is it an official teaching of the Church?

I'll sum it up this way and correct me if I'm not stating it correctly;

"When we see anyone, the poor, the sick, the unsightly, the evil person, the good, the atheist, etc.,etc. we must see Jesus Christ in them."

I have heard that the source for this teaching comes from the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, verses 31 to 46, particularly where Jesus says in verse 40,

"`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' "

He says the converse in verse 45.

I would suggest that this may well be a misinterpretation of the passage in question and a misappropriation to the teaching in question.
If we look at the context of these verses we first see in verse 32 and 33 the King separating the sheep from the goats, putting the one on his right and the other on his left. Who are the sheep? Who are the goats? He tells us right in the parable. The sheep are the ones who did his will and the goats are those who did not. The goats are going away into eternal punishment. Clearly he is talking about those who are saved and those who are not.
So the question is, from this parable, who are his "brethren?" And who then are the "least of his brethren?" Clearly the sheep. And who are the sheep? Those going to heaven.
If we are still not sure we can go to Matthew 12:50:
"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." and
Mark 3:35:
"Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Therefore, if we are to interpret this passage correctly we must say that we see Jesus in those who follow him, who are his brothers and sisters, not just in anyone. Who are his brothers and sisters? Those who do his will. And we can get further confirmation from the account of Saul on the Damascus road where Jesus asks him, "why are you persecuting me?" We all recognize that Jesus is identifying his Church with himself.

In a recent post of Jimmy Akin at his NC Register blog he quotes Benedict XVI;
"No one in the Christian community must be hungry or poor: This is a fundamental obligation. Communion with God, expressed as brotherly communion, is lived out in practice in social commitment, in Christian charity and in justice."

It would seem to me that this particular passage in Matthew is expressing a much narrower understanding of social obligation, making certain first that our brothers and sisters in Christ are taken care of. So much so that our salvation depends upon it.

Does all of this preclude the other idea of seeing Jesus in anyone and everyone, an idea I believe was expressed by Mother Theresa? No, but it doesn't come from this passage. We know that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and that Jesus became truly human in the Incarnation so that he is now permanently one of us as well as God. From that we can analogously conclude that he we can see him in everyone. Absolutely. But it doesn't come from Matthew 25:31-46.

[PJM]

=uther;9294167]Where and when did this teaching originate and is it an official teaching of the Church?

I'll sum it up this way and correct me if I'm not stating it correctly;

"When we see anyone, the poor, the sick, the unsightly, the evil person, the good, the atheist, etc.,etc. we must see Jesus Christ in them."

I have heard that the source for this teaching comes from the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, verses 31 to 46, particularly where Jesus says in verse 40,

Hmmmm, I don't see where the verses you selected fit the criteria? Maybe its just me?

I suspect the following come a bit closer in explaining the teaching it questions:

Each of these in there own way explain the truth the need for this teaching. Amen!

Rom.5; 6, 8 “While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

John.13: 34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” John.15: 9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.”

Matt.7: 1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.”

John 6:52 -57 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.”

1Cor.11: 1 “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

1Cor.13 .. ALL
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

God Bless
pat/PJM

[uther]

I agree PJM, that all of the Scripture quotations you have cited lead us in the direction of the teaching I mentioned. And, in fact, I have no particular disagreement with the teaching in and of itself.

However, I have so often heard that line from Matthew 25 quoted in support of the teaching that I looked it up. " `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

And it seems to me that it does not in fact mean that at all.

[Dorothy]

Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us. It doesn't mean we become a doormat, but with His grace we can remain calm and respond without anger in most situations. There are times when anger is righteous, and with the help of the Holy Spirit we can understand how to handle the circumstances.

God's love is the greatest power in the world, and when we allow Him to love others through us, many an argument will be de-fused.

It takes a lot of practice, but with His grace all things are possible.

How can others get to know Our Lord if we do not show Christ to them in us?

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by uther

I agree PJM, that all of the Scripture quotations you have cited lead us in the direction of the teaching I mentioned. And, in fact, I have no particular disagreement with the teaching in and of itself.

However, I have so often heard that line from Matthew 25 quoted in support of the teaching that I looked it up. " `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

And it seems to me that it does not in fact mean that at all.

It seems from the very beginning of the Church, the Faithful have interpreted "ALL people" to be "the least of His brothers". For the Church were quick to help the poor and the decrepit, whether they were Christian or not.

For example, when the plague struck Rome (2nd or 3rd century), it was the "hated" Christians who stayed behind and helped the sick, even at the risk of their own livelihood.

Babies that were left abandoned by the masters of households to die in the elements? It was the Church that saved them, either from death or from slave traders who would also try and gather them up.

Think about it, uther, how do you evangelize to others, if not with your actions? Your words and preaching are useless if they are not backed up with Love.

BTW, in your OP, were you citing someone else's words or your own. It sounds like you were quoting someone else, but I may have been confused.

[NotWorthy]

Ask yourself, "Does God love everyone, or just those who are saved?" Does He ask any less of us?

[fred conty]

Originally Posted by uther

Where and when did this teaching originate and is it an official teaching of the Church?

I'll sum it up this way and correct me if I'm not stating it correctly;

"When we see anyone, the poor, the sick, the unsightly, the evil person, the good, the atheist, etc.,etc. we must see Jesus Christ in them."

I have heard that the source for this teaching comes from the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, verses 31 to 46, particularly where Jesus says in verse 40,

"`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' "

He says the converse in verse 45.

I would suggest that this may well be a misinterpretation of the passage in question and a misappropriation to the teaching in question.
If we look at the context of these verses we first see in verse 32 and 33 the King separating the sheep from the goats, putting the one on his right and the other on his left. Who are the sheep? Who are the goats? He tells us right in the parable. The sheep are the ones who did his will and the goats are those who did not. The goats are going away into eternal punishment. Clearly he is talking about those who are saved and those who are not.
So the question is, from this parable, who are his "brethren?" And who then are the "least of his brethren?" Clearly the sheep. And who are the sheep? Those going to heaven.
If we are still not sure we can go to Matthew 12:50:
"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother." and
Mark 3:35:
"Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Therefore, if we are to interpret this passage correctly we must say that we see Jesus in those who follow him, who are his brothers and sisters, not just in anyone. Who are his brothers and sisters? Those who do his will. And we can get further confirmation from the account of Saul on the Damascus road where Jesus asks him, "why are you persecuting me?" We all recognize that Jesus is identifying his Church with himself.

In a recent post of Jimmy Akin at his NC Register blog he quotes Benedict XVI;
"No one in the Christian community must be hungry or poor: This is a fundamental obligation. Communion with God, expressed as brotherly communion, is lived out in practice in social commitment, in Christian charity and in justice."

It would seem to me that this particular passage in Matthew is expressing a much narrower understanding of social obligation, making certain first that our brothers and sisters in Christ are taken care of. So much so that our salvation depends upon it.

Does all of this preclude the other idea of seeing Jesus in anyone and everyone, an idea I believe was expressed by Mother Theresa? No, but it doesn't come from this passage. We know that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, and that Jesus became truly human in the Incarnation so that he is now permanently one of us as well as God. From that we can analogously conclude that he we can see him in everyone. Absolutely. But it doesn't come from Matthew 25:31-46.

It seems to me that I would agree with you on that particular verse. When he says "Brethern" he would be referring to how other presbyters and elders were using the word "brethern" when they were addressing their own congregation or church.

I think what has happened is that it is a convenient verse which is short and to the point, and it was used in that way as a stretch applied to "all". And over time it was just accepted as such.

Just a thought.

[PJM]

=uther;9294392]I agree PJM, that all of the Scripture quotations you have cited lead us in the direction of the teaching I mentioned. And, in fact, I have no particular disagreement with the teaching in and of itself.

However, I have so often heard that line from Matthew 25 quoted in support of the teaching that I looked it up. " `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

And it seems to me that it does not in fact mean that at all.

THANKS,
pat/PJM

[uther]

Originally Posted by fred conty

It seems to me that I would agree with you on that particular verse. When he says "Brethern" he would be referring to how other presbyters and elders were using the word "brethern" when they were addressing their own congregation or church.

I think what has happened is that it is a convenient verse which is short and to the point, and it was used in that way as a stretch applied to "all". And over time it was just accepted as such.

Just a thought.

You may be right Fred.

I wouldn't be concerned about it at all, as a matter of fact, except that it does have certain consequences in our day, and particularly for our own salvation. Besides which, in my opinion, it is a misuse of the Scripture being quoted.

It seems to me there is something special being taught here by Jesus Christ, something with respect to fellow Christians, fellow Catholics, that we need to be aware of. I agree with all of those who point out our obligation to the poor, our obligation to evangelization. None of that I remotely disagree with.

However, I think that in this case Jesus is making a special point to say that we are under a first obligation to help our brethren in Christ. It perhaps seems a technical point except that I have seen sometimes an attitude of indifference, both in the ecclesial communions where I was raised and in the Church since becoming Catholic, an indifference toward those of our own brothers and sisters who are struggling. Some of the teachings of the Church, in particular those respecting reproduction and families, are occasionally difficult to follow without the help of all of the Church.

In this day and age, when so many Catholics have bitten into the apple of self-centered ambition that pervades the culture, when a family is following the teaching of the Church and being open to life, there are those who take the world's attitude quite simply and say "well, why did you have so many kids, if you couldn't take care of them?" This is where the thing gets a little tougher, doesn't it? Are we obligated to help those other Catholics who are trying to obey God's will and reject the contraceptive mentality of the world around? This scripture says yes, indeed we are. We need to think more as a Church, as part of the body of Christ, and take care of each other, rather than being just a collection of individuals in pews, or small cliques, etc. That selfish thinking is fuelled by our dependence on the state to do what the Catholic Church, the body of Christ, has always done in the past, and it has impersonalized it all. A cheque from the federal government is not community, and we tend to isolate ourselves and say, "oh well, why don't they just go to this government program or that one?"

We need to think of the bigger picture as well, within the body of Christ. Where do vocations come from, or where have they come from most often in the past? From large families. Some in the family married, some sons became priests, some daughters became sisters, and in turn, their service helped other families when they were young and not well off. We need to be willing to forego some of our luxuries to help the body of Christ I think. This is a tough saying, because often we know those people and we may not even like them, or their squalling kids, yes?

But if we sit in the pew and look over at them and feel self-righteous in the modern cultural sense, sniffing that its their own fault for having so many kids, I think that applying Matthew 25 we are in fact jeopardizing our own salvation, by withholding that cup of water, that clothing, that money, whatever it may be that they need. We should be happy that they are raising children in the Church and help them in any way we can because those children are also our brothers and sisters in Christ and they are the future of the Church, the more the better. And as we stand and re-affirm the Creed when each of those children are baptized, we are taking on some of the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those children.

The same principle applies to our brothers and sisters in Christ at whatever stage of life, young or old, but I think that in our culture, the negatives are most heavy on the reproductive young married people. I think this is part of what the Bishops and the Holy Father are speaking of when they talk about being a culture apart, a radical culture in the world, a culture of life.

So then, if we misuse this passage in Matthew 25, it seems to me that we risk missing a very important teaching from our Lord.

[Dorothy]

Originally Posted by uther

You may be right Fred.

I wouldn't be concerned about it at all, as a matter of fact, except that it does have certain consequences in our day, and particularly for our own salvation. Besides which, in my opinion, it is a misuse of the Scripture being quoted.

It seems to me there is something special being taught here by Jesus Christ, something with respect to fellow Christians, fellow Catholics, that we need to be aware of. I agree with all of those who point out our obligation to the poor, our obligation to evangelization. None of that I remotely disagree with.

However, I think that in this case Jesus is making a special point to say that we are under a first obligation to help our brethren in Christ. It perhaps seems a technical point except that I have seen sometimes an attitude of indifference, both in the ecclesial communions where I was raised and in the Church since becoming Catholic, an indifference toward those of our own brothers and sisters who are struggling. Some of the teachings of the Church, in particular those respecting reproduction and families, are occasionally difficult to follow without the help of all of the Church.

In this day and age, when so many Catholics have bitten into the apple of self-centered ambition that pervades the culture, when a family is following the teaching of the Church and being open to life, there are those who take the world's attitude quite simply and say "well, why did you have so many kids, if you couldn't take care of them?" This is where the thing gets a little tougher, doesn't it? Are we obligated to help those other Catholics who are trying to obey God's will and reject the contraceptive mentality of the world around? This scripture says yes, indeed we are. We need to think more as a Church, as part of the body of Christ, and take care of each other, rather than being just a collection of individuals in pews, or small cliques, etc. That selfish thinking is fuelled by our dependence on the state to do what the Catholic Church, the body of Christ, has always done in the past, and it has impersonalized it all. A cheque from the federal government is not community, and we tend to isolate ourselves and say, "oh well, why don't they just go to this government program or that one?"

We need to think of the bigger picture as well, within the body of Christ. Where do vocations come from, or where have they come from most often in the past? From large families. Some in the family married, some sons became priests, some daughters became sisters, and in turn, their service helped other families when they were young and not well off. We need to be willing to forego some of our luxuries to help the body of Christ I think. This is a tough saying, because often we know those people and we may not even like them, or their squalling kids, yes?

But if we sit in the pew and look over at them and feel self-righteous in the modern cultural sense, sniffing that its their own fault for having so many kids, I think that applying Matthew 25 we are in fact jeopardizing our own salvation, by withholding that cup of water, that clothing, that money, whatever it may be that they need. We should be happy that they are raising children in the Church and help them in any way we can because those children are also our brothers and sisters in Christ and they are the future of the Church, the more the better. And as we stand and re-affirm the Creed when each of those children are baptized, we are taking on some of the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of those children.

The same principle applies to our brothers and sisters in Christ at whatever stage of life, young or old, but I think that in our culture, the negatives are most heavy on the reproductive young married people. I think this is part of what the Bishops and the Holy Father are speaking of when they talk about being a culture apart, a radical culture in the world, a culture of life.

So then, if we misuse this passage in Matthew 25, it seems to me that we risk missing a very important teaching from our Lord.

Excellent points! Thank you!

My eight children are all grown with families of their own now. I started them out in Catholic school, and could only afford two shirts and one pair of pants for each of the boys, and one jumper and two blouses for each of the girls. I never said anything, and one time sold an antique that was given to me to pay for a uniform. Being a quiet person, I didn't learn till years later that I could have sat down with the pastor and discussed this all with him. I also could have asked if anyone had uniforms in good condition to sell at a big discount I would have been happy to do that. (I had been to all public schools). When the oldest was in 7th grade, I did take all of them out of the Catholic school, when I heard that the tuition would be going up. (understandable). I really needed to learn how to explain my circumstances.

[fred conty]

Uther,

Jesus said what you just said at the last supper to his apostles.

I do think we need to pay more attention to our own. Just recently it was said that St. Francis' idea of preaching was to catholics not to others.

We do need to think of our own in the church first especially in this way, to help them and bring them support in their faith. Jesus did say to Peter, strengthen your brethern.

But on the other side of the coin, Jesus said to bring the good news to everyone.

Maybe all of this is a matter of balance and need which varies in time and place and gifts.

Just a few thoughts about our mission.

[uther]

Originally Posted by Dorothy

Excellent points! Thank you!

My eight children are all grown with families of their own now. I started them out in Catholic school, and could only afford two shirts and one pair of pants for each of the boys, and one jumper and two blouses for each of the girls. I never said anything, and one time sold an antique that was given to me to pay for a uniform. Being a quiet person, I didn't learn till years later that I could have sat down with the pastor and discussed this all with him. I also could have asked if anyone had uniforms in good condition to sell at a big discount I would have been happy to do that. (I had been to all public schools). When the oldest was in 7th grade, I did take all of them out of the Catholic school, when I heard that the tuition would be going up. (understandable). I really needed to learn how to explain my circumstances.

And we need to learn how to gently ask. God bless you and your family, Dorothy.

[Dorothy]

Originally Posted by uther

And we need to learn how to gently ask. God bless you and your family, Dorothy.

Thank you! God bless you too.