Non-catholics, How do you "Tell it to the Church"

[Peter_J]

No, not sexual morality…doctrinal disagreement if anything.

So, for example, do you believe the RCC should excommunicate all Catholics who don’t believe in Papal Infallibility?

 

[Radical]

So, for example, do you believe the RCC should excommunicate all Catholics who don’t believe in Papal Infallibility?

PeterJ…I believe that if the RCC was using Matt 18 as its guide then, yes it should excommunicate all Catholics who don’t believe in Papal Infallibility. I used to think that those RCs who don’t accept all RC doctrine should do the honest thing and leave the RCC, but now I think that they should stay and try and change the RCC from the inside (and of course the reason that I want to see change in the RCC is to facilitate greater unity around greater truth…in other words, I would love to join the RCC, but my conscience would not allow me to do so b/c of the RCC’s current doctrine).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PeterJ…I believe that if the RCC was using Matt 18 as its guide then, yes it should excommunicate all Catholics who don’t believe in Papal Infallibility. I used to think that those RCs who don’t accept all RC doctrine should do the honest thing and leave the RCC, but now I think that they should stay and try and change the RCC from the inside (and of course the reason that I want to see change in the RCC is to facilitate greater unity around greater truth…in other words, I would love to join the RCC, but my conscience would not allow me to do so b/c of the RCC’s current doctrine).

The problems lies within each and every individual who is supposed to search within themselves. No one can see what’s in another’s heart, when it comes to what each and every person believes or doesn’t believe. No Church, Catholic or Protestants, has a checklist of beliefs that has to be checked off and affirmed prior to each service. The Church can only teach the doctrine and the consequences on things that cannot be readily observed.

 

[sixofseven]

There’s an example of the priest in Brisbane, Australia who as far as I know is ***risking ***excommunication for unorthodox practices such as blessing same-sex couples and having a buddha statue in the Church.

The example of ‘taking it to the Church’ was that the Bishop advised that St Mary’s was operating outside practices and policies of the Catholic Church - to the denial of the priest and congregation. The priest intends to start his own ‘Catholics in exile’ community. So here we see even the Catholic Church that those not willing to listen to the Church can simply go away and start their own.

So, it was taken to the Vatican who have advised the sacraments he administers may be invalid; the priest would be able to celebrate a “valid but illicit” Mass even if he is suspended. But without proper faculties he could not hear confessions, and any marriages that he celebrated would be invalid in the eyes of the Church. The priest also routinely uses as baptismal formula that is invalid.

The grounds for excommunication would be “causing harm to ecclesiastical communion”.

Here’s an article from Catholic Weekly catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=5520&class=Latest News&subclass=CW National

And another more recent article news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/archbishop-may-remove-priests-authority-20090501-aq3z.html

How should this priest be treated? A soft approach has been taken with over 6 months of negotiations, mediations, letters etc and he has refused to listen. So, send him on his way and let everyone know that his practices are heretical.

 

[JRKH]

There’s an example of the priest in Brisbane, Australia who as far as I know is ***risking ***excommunication for unorthodox practices such as blessing same-sex couples and having a buddha statue in the Church.

The example of ‘taking it to the Church’ was that the Bishop advised that St Mary’s was operating outside practices and policies of the Catholic Church - to the denial of the priest and congregation. The priest intends to start his own ‘Catholics in exile’ community. So here we see even the Catholic Church that those not willing to listen to the Church can simply go away and start their own.

So, it was taken to the Vatican who have advised the sacraments he administers may be invalid; the priest would be able to celebrate a “valid but illicit” Mass even if he is suspended. But without proper faculties he could not hear confessions, and any marriages that he celebrated would be invalid in the eyes of the Church. The priest also routinely uses as baptismal formula that is invalid.

The grounds for excommunication would be “causing harm to ecclesiastical communion”.

Here’s an article from Catholic Weekly catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=5520&class=Latest News&subclass=CW National

And another more recent article news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/archbishop-may-remove-priests-authority-20090501-aq3z.html

How should this priest be treated? A soft approach has been taken with over 6 months of negotiations, mediations, letters etc and he has refused to listen. So, send him on his way and let everyone know that his practices are heretical.

From what little information is given in the articles it appears that the Archbishop is handling it as well as he can while also giving the priest ample opportunity to repent.
It appears however that the priest has no intention of repenting and is simply flaunting his heretical practices in front of his superiors - almost daring them to discipline him. His statement about applying to become a “marriage celebrant” if the Church strips him of his priestly authority appears to demonstrate that, rather than considering the consequences of his disobedience he is simply planning his next “move” of defiance.
At this point it appears the Bishop would have not other choice than to proceed with further disciplinary actions and recommend to the Vatican that the priest be formally excommunicated.
Then - I believe the diocese would be well served to have published at all the parishes the fact of the case and that this priest is NOT authorized to act on behalf of the Church.

This of course is only my opinion.

Peace
James

 

[jlhargus]

PeterJ…I believe that if the RCC was using Matt 18 as its guide then, yes it should excommunicate all Catholics who don’t believe in Papal Infallibility. I used to think that those RCs who don’t accept all RC doctrine should do the honest thing and leave the RCC, but now I think that they should stay and try and change the RCC from the inside (and of course the reason that I want to see change in the RCC is to facilitate greater unity around greater truth…in other words, I would love to join the RCC, but my conscience would not allow me to do so b/c of the RCC’s current doctrine).

JL: Actually a person who has full knowledge and understanding of a defined teaching such as infallibility and refuses to accept it has excommunicated himself, he has gone into hersay. There is no need for formal excommunication unless the action is causing scandal.

Can you be more specific on what current doctrine bothers you, maybe we can help you.

 

[JRKH]

I want to thank everyone who participated on this thread for the fine discussion and Christian fellowship displayed.

In particular I was impressed with the commonality of how churches handled such issues, and also with “Radical’s” discussion on hwo well the RC Church employs the verses posed in the OP.

It has been a most enlightening thread for me and has led me to a couple of conclusions.

1. Most NCC appear use the same basic system that the Catholic Church uses in dealing with those who teach “errant” beliefs. That is, the NCC congregation will have a group of selected “elders” (or Pastor) deal with the offender. Presumably these persons are well versed in Doctrinal beliefs and are able to adequately explain them to the offender. It said offender refuses to recant, then he is asked to leave the congregation. In any event the offender is not brought up before the “entire body of believers”
   This system is remarkably similar to the Catholic Church whereby Church authorities would be the ones to address the issue.
2. In each case there is a recognition that a “learned” authority (magisterium)is necessary for adequately dealing with an issue concerning doctrine and assuring that Scripture is properly interpreted and applied.
3. In either case, Catholic or NCC, there is nothing preventing the offender from going down the street and “starting his own church” However this is where the two systems begin to diverge.
4. Under the Catholic System where Church is defined as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, and having authority through the magisterium, a person can be excommunicated, that is put “outside” of the Body of Christ, and his heresy publicly exposed if need be. Thereby warning other Christians of the dangers contained within the errant theology. This Authority - Both ancient and consistant - is tracable all the way back to Christ through Apostolic succession.
5. Under the “NCC System” where church is defined as “The Body of Believers”, a person “excommunicated” from one “body of believers” simply goes to another “body of believers” or opens a new branch of the “body of believers”. Under this NCC definition of church, there is nothing to say that this “new”, “bible based” body of believers is any more or less legitimate than the community that kicked him out. This is because the very basis for the NCC Churches goes back, not to the Apostles, but to the rejection of a unified Church Authority.
6. So it appears that it is impossible for the NCC, “body of believers” churches to invoke a punishment as called for in Matthew 18:17. It is impossible for a NCC church (except locally, community by community of course) to “Treat him as a tax-collector” - To seperate him from the “body of believers”.

In the briefest of summaries, it appears that the NCC concept of “Body of Believers” cannot truly fulfill the mandate called for in Holy scripture" and, since scripture is the “Sole Rule of Faith” for most NCC churches there appears to be a real problem for them to faithfully obey Christ’s command with a “body of believers” definition for “church”.

Peace
James

 

[sixofseven]

I want to thank everyone who participated on this thread for the fine discussion and Christian fellowship displayed.

Here here!

This has been a great thread to read , participate in :manvspc:, reflect on - just great!
I think you summed things up nicely James.

I pray that we all can faithfully follow Christ’s commands…:grouphug:

 

[Radical]

Hello, sorry for the delay in responding

Can you be more specific on what current doctrine bothers you, maybe we can help you.

Thanks for the offer, but at this point in time I am nowhere close to the Tiber and am not moving in that direction.

 

[Radical]

I want to thank everyone who participated on this thread for the fine discussion and Christian fellowship displayed.

was a pleasure here too.

Under the “NCC System” where church is defined as “The Body of Believers”, a person “excommunicated” from one “body of believers” simply goes to another “body of believers” or opens a new branch of the “body of believers”. Under this NCC definition of church, there is nothing to say that this “new”, “bible based” body of believers is any more or less legitimate than the community that kicked him out.

correct. The NCC view would be that by following Christ’s direction we have fulfilled our responsibility and that the matter is now in God’s hands…and he has a vastly superior ability to change the offender’s heart than does the church.

This is because the very basis for the NCC Churches goes back, not to the Apostles, but to the rejection of a unified Church Authority.

I think it also important to note that the rejection occurred b/c the “unified Church Authority” in question was seen to have strayed from the teaching of our Lord and of the Apostles and so it was necessary to bypass that authority in order to reconnect to the Apostles…and to then leave unity in God’s hands

In the briefest of summaries, it appears that the NCC concept of “Body of Believers” cannot truly fulfill the mandate called for in Holy scripture" …

we would disagree, of course. I have never encountered a Protestant that thought his church could not obey the direction. It is viewed as a very simple matter that simply requires the local church to ‘treat the offender as a tax collector” and then to leave it in God’s hands.

…and, since scripture is the “Sole Rule of Faith” for most NCC churches there appears to be a real problem for them to faithfully obey Christ’s command with a “body of believers” definition for “church”.

There are, however, other commands that we can’t fulfill. For example, I am to love my wife as Christ loves the church and I will never equal Christ’s example…the list of things we can’t fulfill is actually quite long.

Peace

 

[JRKH]

was a pleasure here too.

And As always your posts have been well expressed an illuminative.

Under the “NCC System” where church is defined as “The Body of Believers”, a person “excommunicated” from one “body of believers” simply goes to another “body of believers” or opens a new branch of the “body of believers”. Under this NCC definition of church, there is nothing to say that this “new”, “bible based” body of believers is any more or less legitimate than the community that kicked him out.

correct. The NCC view would be that by following Christ’s direction we have fulfilled our responsibility and that the matter is now in God’s hands…and he has a vastly superior ability to change the offender’s heart than does the church.

Your points are aof course true, but do you really think if was our Lord’s intention that a “dissenter” in - say Corinth, where Paul adomished the faithful to rid themselves of such persons, should be able to go to Antioch or Epehsia and spread his heresy there as well? That then each of these Churches would, inependently, have to listen and then decide whether to accept or reject the teaching?
And, if finding no established Churches accepting, this person feeling justified in seeting up his own Church community and being accepted as a fellow Christian?
Or is it more likely that, once “The Church” had a say on the matter of the bad teaching, all of the Church commuties everywhere would then reject the bad teaching as heretical?

This is because the very basis for the NCC Churches goes back, not to the Apostles, but to the rejection of a unified Church Authority.

I think it also important to note that the rejection occurred b/c the “unified Church Authority” in question was seen to have strayed from the teaching of our Lord and of the Apostles and so it was necessary to bypass that authority in order to reconnect to the Apostles…and to then leave unity in God’s hands

Point noted, butthe key word is that the Church was “Seen to have strayed…” That is different from her actually straying. And of course we can readily see the result of this rejection of a single unified Christian Authority. Many conpeting and conflicting denominations who all claim bible and Holy Spirit, and all belong to the “body of believers”

we would disagree, of course. I have never encountered a Protestant that thought his church could not obey the direction. It is viewed as a very simple matter that simply requires the local church to ‘treat the offender as a tax collector” and then to leave it in God’s hands.
There are, however, other commands that we can’t fulfill. For example, I am to love my wife as Christ loves the church and I will never equal Christ’s example…the list of things we can’t fulfill is actually quite long.
Peace

Also true. I will gladly concede that in the real world we are left with the inability to completely live up to what Christ wishes for us.
I also recognize that most of us view the OP passage in a narrower way than I proposed. My main point was to try and see how our, Sola Scriptura NCC brethren would respond to the proposition and also to explore it for myself to see what, if any, holes were in my proposal.

It’s been a greeat conversation and I hope that others who run across it will feel free to add their own takes on it.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Under the “NCC System” where church is defined as “The Body of Believers”, a person “excommunicated” from one “body of believers” simply goes to another “body of believers” or opens a new branch of the “body of believers”. Under this NCC definition of church, there is nothing to say that this “new”, “bible based” body of believers is any more or less legitimate than the community that kicked him out.

If I may “butt in” here, it sounds to me like neither of you understand what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

we would disagree, of course. I have never encountered a Protestant that thought his church could not obey the direction. It is viewed as a very simple matter that simply requires the local church to ‘treat the offender as a tax collector” and then to leave it in God’s hands.

The thing is, though, that most (I believe) mainline Protestant churches practice “open communion”. So it’s not “You can receive communion from us as long as you’re a member in good standing of one of the denominations with whom we have an intercommunion agreement” but rather “You can receive communion from us as long as you’re a baptised Christian.” I have trouble seeing how that can fit with the application of Matthew 18: 15-18.

 

[Radical]

If I may “butt in” here, it sounds to me like neither of you understand what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

that is always a possibility, butt I believe that in this thread NCC has come to mean Protestant…least that is my understanding

The thing is, though, that most (I believe) mainline Protestant churches practice “open communion”. So it’s not “You can receive communion from us as long as you’re a member in good standing of one of the denominations with whom we have an intercommunion agreement” but rather “You can receive communion from us as long as you’re a baptised Christian.” I have trouble seeing how that can fit with the application of Matthew 18: 15-18.

I don’t think the Lord’s Supper was contemplated at Matt 18…at the time the LS was unknown to the audience (having not been not instituted yet). Treating someone as a tax collector/pagan would be the whole package of cutting that person off from fellowship (1 Cor 2:5) and not just withholding the elements of the LS.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

that is always a possibility, butt I believe that in this thread NCC has come to mean Protestant…least that is my understanding

I don’t think the Lord’s Supper was contemplated at Matt 18…at the time the LS was unknown to the audience (having not been not instituted yet). Treating someone as a tax collector/pagan would be the whole package of cutting that person off from fellowship (1 Cor 2:5) and not just withholding the elements of the LS.

From the same book of 1 Corinthians, St. Paul wrote a letter of correction to the Church of Corinth, specifically addressing the Lord’s Supper.

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

As his letter was a letter of correction to the Church of Corinth, he tells them to, “…let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.” This implies that a man that does not prove himself is unworthy to eat the bread, or drink of the chalice. No where does his instructions say to cut the man off completely.

 

[Peter_J]

that is always a possibility, butt I believe that in this thread NCC has come to mean Protestant…least that is my understanding

Intrinsically speaking, I don’t insist on calling the Eastern Orthodox “noncatholic” (and same for the Oriental Orthodox, PNCC, and Old Catholics); but I think it’s a pretty well established custom on this forum that when we say “Catholic” we mean “Roman Catholic” (in full communion with the Pope); so by extension, the Orthodox should in fact be included in the term “noncatholic” (without, of course, any intention to offend them).

BTW, have you read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? He gives an interesting commentary on terms “coming to mean” something else. The particular cases he deals with are the terms “gentleman” and “Christian”, but I think his commentary is applicable to the term “Catholic” (and “Noncatholic”).

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think the Lord’s Supper was contemplated at Matt 18…at the time the LS was unknown to the audience (having not been not instituted yet). Treating someone as a tax collector/pagan would be the whole package of cutting that person off from fellowship (1 Cor 2:5) and not just withholding the elements of the LS.

Yes, that’s a good point. “Treating someone as a tax collector/pagan” does not mean just “withholding the elements of the LS”.

But actually, I think that just strengthens my criticism: if they’re not even “withholding the elements of the LS”, then they’re definitely not treating him/her as a tax collector/pagan.

 

[Radical]

But actually, I think that just strengthens my criticism: if they’re not even “withholding the elements of the LS”, then they’re definitely not treating him/her as a tax collector/pagan.

It seems that I haven’t explained the process very well. The examples that I am familiar with are from various Mennonite groups. If it is decided to treat someone as a taxcollector, that decision and the details of the offense and sanction will be announced to the congregation. If that fellow then showed up to church, he would be asked if he was there to repent and if not, he would be asked to leave. He would not be offered a seat, let alone the communion elements. Outside of the church that fellow would also be shunned by members of the congregation. Yes, all those in attendance who have the Lord as their savior will be invited to participate, except that the “tax collector” who refused to leave (BTW I’ve never seen that happen) would not be allowed to participate.

 

[Radical]

BTW, have you read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity? He gives an interesting commentary on terms “coming to mean” something else. The particular cases he deals with are the terms “gentleman” and “Christian”, but I think his commentary is applicable to the term “Catholic” (and “Noncatholic”).

I’ve read chunks of it some time ago,…a crisp new copy of it is collecting dust on my bookshelf.

 

[Radical]

As his letter was a letter of correction to the Church of Corinth, he tells them to, “…let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.” This implies that a man that does not prove himself is unworthy to eat the bread, or drink of the chalice. No where does his instructions say to cut the man off completely.

The sexually immoral fellow that Paul has in mind at ! Cor 5:2 (regarding being put out of the Corinthian fellowship) is an entirely different situation from the good chunk of the congregation that wasn’t approaching the Lord’s supper in a worthy manner. I don’t think your argument connects.

 

[NDfan]

Since you do not specify a particular denomination in your profile, may I ask whether your local congregation is attached to others? In other words when your elders make a determination, how many “Local congregations” would be affected by it?

No our congregation has no attachment but we partner with many local churches including Catholic ones for ministry and outreach. The past 2 years I personally served at a Catholic Charities home for battered women. We did all kinds of painting and clean up and the partnership was incredible.

OK, looking at this issue and relating to my question above, would elders in another “Local congregation” of your same denomination be able to freely allow gay marriage? I realize that they likely wouldn’t but I’m trying to better understand how your “Authority” works.

We don’t allow gay marriage and believe any church that does is preaching a false Gospel. Our authority as you state is consolidated to the Elders within our church. We don’t try to exercise authority outside of that.

This is wise. We also believe one should continue to learn and study Scripture. Question.
How do you determine if one is “more qualified” to interpret Scripture.

I personally don’t feel scripture is difficult to interpret especially when studying the original Greek which I do constantly. But I feel those that have attended Seminary and Bible College probably have a more rounded and deeper understanding of scripture.

Setting aside for a moment the issue of infallibility, would you say that the pope is a person “more qualified” than you or I to interpret Scripture. (This is not a trap) Just cusrious based on your statement above. I know he’s more qualified than me!!

Yes the Pope is most certainly more qualified than you and I given his lifelong commitment to his calling. But I also realize that his schooling is strictly based in Catholic theology so in those terms I will not agree with him on certain things. Being more qualified doesn’t completely discount our ability to challenge what he says. That’s why Christ commands us to be discerning. I’ve had conversations with Priests that made me feel I understood scripture better than they. Their standard response to questions I have is strictly “well this is what the church teaches”.

Of course this can cut both ways. Satan is very capable of misleading you or I as well. Maybe even more so since we do not have the kind of Scriptural, Historical, and theological training that others have.

Yes it can cut both ways. If I had no training scripturally speaking then of course I’d be foolish to just blindly object to what church leaders are teaching. But for me that’s not the complete situation.

Another thing we can learn from studying this early Church History is how the various church leaders remained in touch with each other in order to make sure that teaching was consistant across all of the Church locations. This can be seen in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, as well as Ignatius’ letters during his journey to Rome for Martyrdom.
So, while the local Churches did select local leaders, there remained this submission to the universal authority on matters of faith and morals, as well as in certain cases practices.
Thus there would be no chance for one church to forbid “gay marriage” and another church to allow it.

Peace
James

On this my friend I agree 100%. But keep in mind the benchmark for church teachings was always what does scripture tell us. If you carefully study any of the early church councils the first thing anyone did was reference what scripture stated. Point of fact Ignatius was the first to push for an official canon so all churches would know what the true Apostolic teachings were. Ignatius also had many terrible battles with the gnostics given they were very prominent in his area. To combat this he pushed for church leaders to be Apostolic meaning that their teachings adhered to what the Apostles taught.

PEACE