I've never heard a good answer from non-Catholic Christians re: Matt. 18:15-17

[AgnosTheist]

That Paul spread the word does not negate the primacy of Peter. Acts clearly shows Peter as the leader. It is always whenever he speaks, the all stop and listen. He formulated the first Doctrines, no circumcision or Jewish dietary laws.

i am not talking about supremacy. I’m talking about church membership. paul became a christian apart from the apostles. if anything, that proves that the apostles arent the only rock foundations of the church. paul and his followers stood directly on the teachings of jesus.

 

[Lampo]

the passage was about personal grievances, not doctrines.

Okay, let’s say we are both grieving over this issue.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Okay, let’s say we are both grieving over this issue.

know your scriptures, man:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone

 

[LSK]

every church is man made, even the catholic church. there is just zero evidence that any of them has a divine connection.

This thread is not really about an explanation for that verse. But a discussion on ‘Which is the true Church’. Please, that topic had been beaten to death a million times over.

No, there is evidence…it is evidence you have decided not to accept.

In the Holy Scripture, Catholics believe it states clearly (and the first Christians taught before there was a canonized Bible) that Jesus established ONE Church and established both the primacy of St. Peter as well as the priesthood.

There is also one Truth - and someone not accepting it does not mean it is not Truth. The idea that there are ‘many truths’ is a false one…the reality is there is Truth, and then there are bits and pieces of Truth that individuals will accept. Those that embrace the entire Truth are able to do so by combining faith with reason.

When Jesus instructs people to take an issue to The Church, or St. Paul writes of the Church being a pillar of Truth, both are refering to one Church - the Church HE established - and that Church is The Catholic Church.

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, there is evidence…it is evidence you have decided not to accept.

I was referring to evidences that Jesus really performed miracles & rose from the dead. What you read in the bible, those are just hear-says. And the bible itself is not very reliable…it had undergone some ‘changes’. So its not very logical to argue “which is the true church”. Just follow the teachings of jesus, and accept other people doing the same thing: whether its a catholic, a lutheran, an evangelical, etc.

(*i’m playing peace maker here. * )

 

[MarcoPolo]

Jesus died before establishing a church…Strenght in diversity. Thats what nature is all about.

I don’t know what you’re talking about AT.

 

[Ginger2]

Lampo,

First, was Jesus referring to moon worshipers in the verse you stated? No. He was speaking of someone who shares yuor faith. And the point was that fellow believers are to help keep each other on track.

There are other verses that say we are not to drag non-believers into disputes between believers. But rather we should settle our disputes within the body of believers.

That being said…
I guess the answer depends partly on whether you consider this person a member of the body of believers, or not. If so, and if your friend were Baptist, asking your priest to explain to him the “truth” about baptism is a waste of time.

The bottom line is that this friend is interfering with your right to raise your child. He has no right to interfere unless your child is in some type of danger.

The correct “church” to go to is his pastor. Not to tell him they are wrong, but to explain that he is teaching something that is contrary to your faith.

That should take care of the problem. If the bad behavior continues, whether because the pastor thinks it is OK, or the friend doesn’t listen to his pastor, you need to end all contact with that “friend”.

1 Cor 5:11 But actually, I (Paul) wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one.

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Of course there are variables that effect how to respond. What I have stated is for someone who is definitely undermining your parental authority. It would not be the same for someone who was asked by your child what his church believes - Not fair to ask him to lie. You simply need to explain why your church does not agree with the teaching of the other church.

 

[Lampo]

Lampo,
Ginger2;2877622:

First, was Jesus referring to moon worshipers in the verse you stated? No. He was speaking of someone who shares yuor faith. And the point was that fellow believers are to help keep each other on track.

This dispute is between two members of the Body of Christ.

There are other verses that say we are not to drag non-believers into disputes between believers. But rather we should settle our disputes within the body of believers.

Same as above.

He has no right to interfere unless your child is in some type of danger.

I’d say that my child losing his salvation is of great danger!

The correct “church” to go to is his pastor.

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Lampo]

know your scriptures, man:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone

He is sinning against me by teaching my children false doctrine. Goes against the first Commandment:

"“The first commandment embraces faith, hope, and charity. When we say ‘God’ we confess a constant, unchangeable being, always the same, faithful and just, without any evil. It follows that we must necessarily accept his words and have complete faith in him and acknowledge his authority. He is almighty, merciful, and infinitely beneficent. Who could not place all hope in him? Who could not love him when contemplating the treasures of goodness and love he has poured out on us? Hence the formula God employs in the Scripture at the beginning and end of his commandments: ‘I am the LORD.’”

The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Lampo]

Let’s add this to the scenario:

Suppose I go to my church, and they tell me my friend is right about Baptism, and I am wrong! But then the church closes (for whatever reason) and we both (I and my friend) start attending a different church, just down the street. Still upset, I take my problem to this new church. Now I am told my friend is wrong and I was right all along! But then that church closes, and we begin to attend a new one. This time my friend (who is still convinced he is right) takes the problem to this new church. Now we are told we are both wrong, that Baptism is not needed at all.

I cannot for the life of me imagine Jesus (who is the Truth) giving instructions that would lead someone to such contradictory answers. Therefore, I must conclude that what He had in mind was one church with one doctrine that applies to everyone.

 

[Lampo]

I would also like to give credit to where it’s due. This scenario originally surfaced here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…=124622&page=9

 

[Ginger2]

I’d say that my child losing his salvation is of great danger!

I agree. So you are saying this friend is undermining your parental authority because he thinks your kid will end up in hell if he doesn’t contradict your Biblical beliefs?
"Ginger2:

The correct “church” to go to is his pastor.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Because that is where he will (or should) respect authority.

If a Jewish friend took you to his Rabbi to convince you that you need to be circumcised, would you consider his position to carry any authority with you at all?

 

[AgnosTheist]

He is sinning against me by teaching my children false doctrine.

context, man. jesus did not deal with doctrinal issues.

 

[Lampo]

I agree.
Ginger2;2877748:

So you are saying this friend is undermining your parental authority because he thinks your kid will end up in hell if he doesn’t contradict your Biblical beliefs?

Correct.

If a Jewish friend took you to his Rabbi to convince you that you need to be circumcised, would you consider his position to carry any authority with you at all?

If this is the “church” to which Jesus is referring, yes. There’s no getting around the truth.

 

[Lampo]

context, man. jesus did not deal with doctrinal issues.

Really? Is the “real presence”(John 6) a doctrinal issue? I’d say it is.

 

[BrewMax]

I will accept the truth.

Your statement poses nothing new. You won’t accept anything that isn’t Catholic period. You will not consider listening to anything else whether it makes sense or not. There are those who will not listen to anything Catholic whether it makes sense or not. Same difference.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Really? Is the “real presence”(John 6) a doctrinal issue? I’d say it is.

it wasnt an issue for jesus. anyway you want to deal with a problem that is beyond the scope of jesus’ teachings. just tell the guy to leave your kids alone. if he wont stop then call the police.

Jesus’ teaching assumes that both belongs to the same brotherhood.

 

[Lampo]

Your statement poses nothing new.

It’s not suppose to.

You won’t accept anything that isn’t Catholic period.

Not true. How did you come to this conclusion?

You will not consider listening to anything else whether it makes sense or not.

Again, untrue. I’ve listened to your unbiblical positions.

There are those who will not listen to anything Catholic whether it makes sense or not. Same difference.

It’s not the “same difference” because I’ve proven that I will listen to something that might be true. It is just that I haven’t been convinced the fullness of truth doesn’t lie outside the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD.

 

[AgnosTheist]

anyway what is the Roman Catholic explanation for this verse, and how do catholics follow this teaching of jesus? looks like this teaching holds no meaning to catholics. when a catholic does something wrong to another catholic, they either duke it out mano el mano, or they go to the police.

 

[Lampo]

Jesus’ teaching assumes that both belongs to the same brotherhood.

The scenarios assume this too. I’ve already said this I thought. It is a dispute between two members of the Body of Christ.