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

[Peter_J]

I and nonCatholic Christians beleive we are part of “The Church”.

And we respect your opinion.

Incidentally, though, the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is part of the Church; they believe that it is the Church.

 

[wmscott]

The Catholic Church was born at Pentecost.The priesthood was established at the Last Supper at Christ’s command,"DO THIS…"Our Catholic identity and raison d’etre was indelibly linked to Christ’s confection of His Eucharist.The hierarchy of that coming Catholic Way was established when Christ made Simon,Peter.The Papacy was established before any other formal structure which flowed in toto from that act.Everything has an infancy.

2000 years later we(the Holy Catholic Church)are still the same.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, it is amazing how often this is so completely over looked, or omited.

 

[JRKH]

When I think of the scripture found in the OP I dont think of differences in doctrinal belief. I read if a brother cheats you on a business deal or made a pass at your wife or was seen drunk in public etc etc, this is the type of thing to be brought before the church.

Thank you for your response. I would certainly agree that these things could be brought before teh Church, but I don’t think that it is limited only to those kinds of issues unless you think that preaching a “Different Gospel” is not sinning.

BUT, If we take your example of “Cheating” and you go to his church and after you both lay out your facts, his church sides with him, do you accept that He did not Cheat you even though your own pastor and assembly clearly say he did?

I think we today take it before the church through the media in doctinal issues. Take the prosperity gospel it is criticised by public means and brought before the church, are they repenting , no but as God told Ezekial it is just our job to speak His word and if we dont it is on us if we do and they dont repent it is on them. The same can be said for the pope kissing the quaran. He should not have done it, Gods people spoke against it yet the many will defend or excuse it.

I find this to be a very interesting statement. Especially in light of Paul’s teachings about taking church issues to “pagan courts”. While I realize that it is not an apples to apples comparison, I wonder why anyone would think that “Telling it to the ‘Secular’ Media” and opening it up to all sorts of public debate and scutiny by people who are not christian, could be equated to “Telling it to the Church”. It seems that your line of reasoning fits in with Paul’s concern about the pagans seeing discord and division within the christian communities.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I and nonCatholic Christians beleive we are part of “The Church”.
Remember ekklessia is better translated assembly or congregation than it is church.

And so you are - so long as you have been baptized in the trinitarian form.
I also recognize the translation issues and appreciate it.

However, I would say that where you feel that we put too much emphasis on the “institutional”, authoritaive aspect of The Church, we feel that you (NCC’s) put too much emphasis on the “Assembly” aspect.

But consider this. There is NO intitution with authority that can exist without a stable “assembly” or group. So obviously the Catholic Church recognizes and embrases the concept of the assemby. Likewise there is NO assembly or Group that can maintain long term cohesion without some sort of intitutional authority. Thus we have Protestant Churches with various forms of intitutional structure from elders to catachisms.
In short the two definitions need each other and are not mutually exlusive.

In the same vein, consider that we are part of a Kingdom. Have you ever heard of a kingdom that had NO intitutional structure?

Peace
James

 

[SonofMonica]

And we respect your opinion.

Incidentally, though, the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that the Eastern Orthodox -]Church is /-] Churches are part of the Church; they believe that -]it is/-] they are the Church.

FTFY

 

[Radical]

Without commenting on those specific individuals, I would like to make a general remark that if/when an RC denies a defined dogma (e.g. Papal Infallibility) the Pope has the prerogative to excommunicate him/her, and he also has the prerogative to decide not to excommunicate him/her.

So Peter J, what does this mean? Are you implying that treating someone as you would treat a tax collector amounts to excommunication? If so, all Protestants groups that I have seen putting this passage into practice would agree that excommunication is the sanction involved, but they would not treat it as a direction from our Lord that they could opt to follow or opt to ignore. Do you think the Pope’s prerogative is in line with this passage?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So Peter J, what does this mean? Are you implying that treating someone as you would treat a tax collector amounts to excommunication? If so, all Protestants groups that I have seen putting this passage into practice would agree that excommunication is the sanction involved, but they would not treat it as a direction from our Lord that they could opt to follow or opt to ignore. Do you think the Pope’s prerogative is in line with this passage?

Jesus reached out to tax collectors and pagans with love.

However, he reached out with the message of the truth.

One such truth is that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church. Jesus said that if we reject those he sends we are rejecting him.

 

[Radical]

This is actually a very interesting question.
However I feel unqualified to answer since:
a) I am not familier with the particulars of either person or case
b) I don’t know the particulars of the investigation and
c) I don’t know if there are any further investigations or if other actions might be pending.

Of course what I CAN say is that the matter HAS been taken to the Church and the Church is dealing with it in a manner she feels is appropriate. As a Lay catholic I feel this is sufficient for me.

Peace
James

Well James, it seems to me that Jesus gave a rather clear direction for the Church to follow. If the man refuses to listen, he is to be treated as one would treat a tax collector…which seems to equate to disassociation, shunning, excommunication (or something of that sort). Now the RCC isn’t doing any such thing in these cases. (I understand that you are not aware of the specific details, but I don’t believe it is at all uncommon for RCs to act and speak openly against the teachings of the Pope and with fellow RCs failing to “tell it to the church” and with the RCC failing to take any action against the offender.) You say that the RCC “is dealing with it in a manner she feels is appropriate”, however, I see no indication of such descretion being authorized in the passage. It seems that you believe that “treat him as you would treat a tax collector” can be understood to mean “do whatever you think is appropriate”. I would suggest that if you are going to adopt such a flexible and imprecise interpretation of that portion of the passage, you should be consistent and be equally flexible with the interpretation of the rest of the passage. It seems that you want to give “church” a very precise meaning, but for consistency’s sake shouldn’t “church” be understood to mean anything you think could be appropriately identified as a “church”?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You say that the RCC “is dealing with it in a manner she feels is appropriate”, however, I see no indication of such descretion being authorized in the passage.

**Mat 18:17 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.
Mat 18:18 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.
Mat 18:19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. **

 

[Radical]

Radical,
I appreciate you taking the time to post above and would like to ask a favor.

Could you share with us how your church community approaches this passage?
I don’t know your particular faith tradion.
How would they approach someone teaching a false doctrine?

Peace
James

My community would deal with the matter in the same fashion as others here have described…those holding positions of authority would approach the fellow and advise him that he is in error and that he must stop teaching a false doctrine. If he refused to listen they would likely repeat the action and warn that a failure to stop would result in him being kicked out of the congregation.

As someone has pointed out in this thread, there is nothing that would prevent the fellow from going to the next church down the road and continuing his error. I also note that nothing would stop a problematic RC from just going down the road to a different RCC church and rocking the boat there…unless bouncers were posted at the doors for the purpose of preventing the fellow’s entrance…and who knows, he might find a rather receptive audience down the road given the existence of some rather liberal priests. Further, I believe that the proper way to deal with this sort of fellow is at the local level. Exclusion results in the offender being held accountable for his actions and those suffering the results of his actions are the one’s to impose the sanction.

 

[Radical]

Mat 18:17 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.
Mat 18:18 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.
Mat 18:19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

So are you saying that the passage includes a qualification that allows two to consent to disregard Jesus’s clear direction and do something else…and that, upon such an agreement, disregarding the direction is acceptable? Again, I don’t see verses 18 and 19 as providing an option of obedience to the direction.

 

[SonofMonica]

My community would deal with the matter in the same fashion as others here have described…those holding positions of authority would approach the fellow and advise him that he is in error and that he must stop teaching a false doctrine. If he refused to listen they would likely repeat the action and warn that a failure to stop would result in him being kicked out of the congregation.

As someone has pointed out in this thread, there is nothing that would prevent the fellow from going to the next church down the road and continuing his error. I also note that nothing would stop a problematic RC from just going down the road to a different RCC church and rocking the boat there…unless bouncers were posted at the doors for the purpose of preventing the fellow’s entrance…and who knows, he might find a rather receptive audience down the road given the existence of some rather liberal priests. Further, I believe that the proper way to deal with this sort of fellow is at the local level. Exclusion results in the offender being held accountable for his actions and those suffering the results of his actions are the one’s to impose the sanction.

Thanks for responding to the OP’s question, properly.

Well, I think the difference in the RCC would be that the individual parish priest would not be doing the excommunication. BTW, as a tool in understanding each other, the local church to a Catholic is the diocese, proper, not the parish.

Also, from a Roman Catholic perspective, when the excommunicated goes down the road to another Roman Catholic parish and takes communion from an unwitting priest, he has committed an additional sin. If the priest knowingly admits him, he has sinned too by disobeying the Church.

my 2 cents

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So are you saying that the passage includes a qualification that allows two to consent to disregard Jesus’s clear direction and do something else…and that, upon such an agreement, disregarding the direction is acceptable? Again, I don’t see verses 18 and 19 as providing an option of obedience to the direction.

It is not a consent to disregard, it is however authority to use descretion, with whatsoever they bind and loose will be made so in heaven.

 

[Radical]

Thanks for responding to the OP’s question, properly.

JRKH seems like a very decent fellow and so I was happy to oblige.

Well, I think the difference in the RCC would be that the individual parish priest would not be doing the excommunication.

This appears to have a somewhat impractical aspect to it…it would be best to deal with the matter and implement the sanction rather quickly and if it can’t be done by the local priest then wouldn’t the process take a bit of time?

BTW, as a tool in understanding each other, the local church to a Catholic is the diocese, proper, not the parish.

thanks

Also, from a Roman Catholic perspective, when the excommunicated goes down the road to another Roman Catholic parish and takes communion from an unwitting priest, he has committed an additional sin. If the priest knowingly admits him, he has sinned too by disobeying the Church.

this makes perfect sense…the offender should repent and change and to do otherwise is to further sin from either the RC or the Protestant perspective

 

[SonofMonica]

This appears to have a somewhat impractical aspect to it…it would be best to deal with the matter and implement the sanction rather quickly and if it can’t be done by the local priest then wouldn’t the process take a bit of time?

Both! There are certain offenses where a person is automatically excommunicated. It’s called Latae Sententiae. You can probably Wiki the term and get a list of auto-excommunicating offenses. If I’m not mistaken, a person excommunicates herself by having an abortion, for example. Then there are others that are prerogatory and excommunications are issued as formal decrees for specific persons of notoriety.

this makes perfect sense…the offender should repent and change and to do otherwise is to further sin from either the RC or the Protestant perspective

Yes, when the Catholic person repents and reconciles properly, the excommunication is lifted. Most of the time, the person just goes to confession. But if the pope is handing down the decree, he gets to say what the person has to do to reconcile with the Church.

Oh, and throughout the period of excommunication, the person remains a Catholic, and can generally attend Mass, but cannot receive communion. Hence “ex-communicate.” Just an extra tidbit of info I’ve learned over the years. Hope this is helpful!

 

[JRKH]

My community would deal with the matter in the same fashion as others here have described…those holding positions of authority would approach the fellow and advise him that he is in error and that he must stop teaching a false doctrine. If he refused to listen they would likely repeat the action and warn that a failure to stop would result in him being kicked out of the congregation.

As someone has pointed out in this thread, there is nothing that would prevent the fellow from going to the next church down the road and continuing his error. I also note that nothing would stop a problematic RC from just going down the road to a different RCC church and rocking the boat there…unless bouncers were posted at the doors for the purpose of preventing the fellow’s entrance…and who knows, he might find a rather receptive audience down the road given the existence of some rather liberal priests. Further, I believe that the proper way to deal with this sort of fellow is at the local level. Exclusion results in the offender being held accountable for his actions and those suffering the results of his actions are the one’s to impose the sanction.

Thanks.
Yes it appears that most congregations handle things in a similar manner. That of using some sort of committee or board of elders to deal with such issues. Very much like the Catholic Church does by the authority of the Magisterium. The only practical difference is that in the Catholic system doctrinal issues are dealt with on a “Global” scale and not just left at the local, or regional level. This is a great blessing to the Church for maintaining unity.

As to the matters you raised in this and previous posts. I think that any devoted catholic recognizes that there are problems within the Church. Why should today be any different than all of the past centuries back to apostolic times?
One thing in particular that I noted in your reply was this:
If he refused to listen they would likely repeat the action and warn that a failure to stop would result in him being kicked out of the congregation
I would suggest that perhaps this is how the Church is dealing with the individuals mentioned in your posts. Again please note that I know nothing about cases you mention. Granted, the Church might be acting more slowly than a local independant church might but there is the chance that those in authority are hoping that those people will repent.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

Oh, and throughout the period of excommunication, the person remains a Catholic, and can generally attend Mass, but cannot receive communion. Hence “ex-communicate.” Just an extra tidbit of info I’ve learned over the years. Hope this is helpful!

Here again it doesn’t seem that the RCC is doing a very good job in following the directions contained in the passage. Allowing someone to continue to attend mass seems to fall short of treating someone as a tax collector/heathen. Prodigal Son1 seems to think that verses 18 and 19 are a continuation of and tie into verses 15-17. I disagree. He seems to think that the church is to treat the offender as a heathen/tax collector unless the church decides otherwise. Seems pretty willy-nilly to me and I can’t agree. What do you think?..or is it (no insult intended) almost that an RC must see such descretion provided or the RC would have to conclude that the RCC isn’t following Jesus’s direction?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here again it doesn’t seem that the RCC is doing a very good job in following the directions contained in the passage. Allowing someone to continue to attend mass seems to fall short of treating someone as a tax collector/heathen. Prodigal Son1 seems to think that verses 18 and 19 are a continuation of and tie into verses 15-17. I disagree. He seems to think that the church is to treat the offender as a heathen/tax collector unless the church decides otherwise. Seems pretty willy-nilly to me and I can’t agree. What do you think?..or is it (no insult intended) almost that an RC must see such descretion provided or the RC would have to conclude that the RCC isn’t following Jesus’s direction?

Matthew, himself, was a tax collector, but did Christ shut him out?

I don’t believe the message is to separate someone that needs “healing”.

Mat 9:11 And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners?
Mat 9:12 But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill.

 

[SonofMonica]

Here again it doesn’t seem that the RCC is doing a very good job in following the directions contained in the passage. Allowing someone to continue to attend mass seems to fall short of treating someone as a tax collector/heathen. Prodigal Son1 seems to think that verses 18 and 19 are a continuation of and tie into verses 15-17. I disagree. He seems to think that the church is to treat the offender as a heathen/tax collector unless the church decides otherwise. Seems pretty willy-nilly to me and I can’t agree. What do you think?..or is it (no insult intended) almost that an RC must see such descretion provided or the RC would have to conclude that the RCC isn’t following Jesus’s direction?

I was about to respond to the first part, but Prodigal Son1’s post above has it correct (to me). The Church does treat someone as a tax collector, it treats them as one who needs Christ’s power of healing. It does treat them as heathens, as heathens cannot receive the Eucharist until the repent and reconcile with the Church.

As for the discretion issue, there’s always going to be discretion. Note that there’s necessarily discretion on the part of laypeople in dealing with the offender before it’s ever brought to the Church. And the Church is not a dispenser of punishments. The Church takes into account individuals’ circumstances. Fathers are to act with love, are they not? Even when it is necessary to issue the “punishment” it is done out of love. But I remind you, the excommunication as a decree from the church is really just a recognition of what the person has already done, which is excommunicated himself.

 

[Radical]

I’ve got time for one last post today…

Matthew, himself, was a tax collector, but did Christ shut him out?

what’s more, Jesus even died for the man

I don’t believe the message is to separate someone that needs “healing”.

and I understand that “treat him as a heathen/tax collector” refers to an existing established practice among those of the Jewish faith and would not take into account Jesus’s exceptional actions…and apparently you don’t see it that way.