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

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve got time for one last post today… what’s more, Jesus even died for the man

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.

Since Christ fulfilled the old law and gave us a new covenant, I don’t see it that way.

 

[jlhargus]

Sorry–don’t have the time to read this…but no worries I’ll get back to you.

JL: BornAgain, I am getting worried you mean NEVER.

 

[JRKH]

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?

Here is what I see in this.
You are concerned that what you are seeing is that the RCC is not “applying” the “If they refuse to Listen Even the church, Treat them as a tax collector” aspect of the verses that I quoted in the OP. To an extent you may be right. The church is not applying the passage in a draconian manner.
However as ProdigalSon pointed out the Church does have the authority to “Bind and loose” so there certainly seems to be some wiggle room in this. So he is certainly right also.
One thing to note here is that, regardless what the individual teaches in error, or the steps the church takes in dealing with the individual, the teachings of the Church remain the same, and they remain the same universally. The same cannot necessarily be said in the NCC world.

Also I will just say that, as regards discipline, perhaps The Church has learned something from the past. At the time of the “Martin Luther affair”, it can be seen that there were plenty of missteps made on both sides of the argument. If cooler heads had prevailed perhaps that split could have been averted.

Peace
James

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus

JL: So Christ should have said take it to the bible and if you can’t agree on scripture start another church.

In the OT scripture was always used to correct the church, the church was never used to correct scripture. This pattern holds true today.

jlhargus;5138922] Have you an example of that?

Josiah 2Chronicles

Well at lest you have narrowed it from the OT to 36 chapters of 2Chronicles. Can you narrow that down to something more specific. I don’t have time to look for a needle in a hay stack, especially since there is no needle.

=Hisalone;5143267]2 chronicles 34:
18 Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.
19 Thus it happened, when the king heard the words of the Law, that he tore his clothes. 20 Then the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon[c] the son of Micah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king, saying, 21 “Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for those who are left in Israel and Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out on us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do according to all that is written in this book.”

JL: I have no argument we must keep the word of the Lord, but where does this tell us to take disputes to the scriptures. The king even sent some of his servants to a prophet to inquire of the LORD.

We see in the following OT and NT scripture how disputes were to be handled, buy those in authority:

DT 17:8-12 8: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9: And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: 10: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12: And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
MT 18:17-18 17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The only thing I found in 2Chron was taking it to those appointed: 2Chron19:8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. 10 And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the LORD, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass. 11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD shall be with the good.

Jn 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

 

[JRKH]

Hey guys,
Great discussion!! I hope others are getting as much out of it as I am.

I just wanted to poke in quickly to try and keep on track and move the conversation along.

In summary:

1. Most NC Churches use some sort of teaching authority (magisterium) such as elders to deal with doctrinal issues up to and including dismissing a Pastor they feel is teaching incorrectly. In other words the entire “Assembly” (church), while having (name removed by moderator)ut, doesn’t rule in such matters.
2. The above indicates a basic system not at all unlike the Catholic church except in the matter of scale.
   3)There seems to be a widespread belief among NCC’s that the early churches were independent.
3. All of us, Catholic and Non-Catholic alike agree on the primary importance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
4. All of us, Catholic and Non-Catholic alike agree on the importance of the Bible as a fundamental foundation for our beliefs.

So -

I see a lot of good common ground between us both in beliefs and in practices. There is one place in the above list where I see an obvious divergence or lack of due consideration. That being in the area of the definition of “Church” and in the degree of independence among the earliest Christina communities.

I may be reposting some things here but I’d like to summarize a couple of things.

The first is the idea of independence among the early churches.
I will not disagree that the early Churches excersized a different degree of independence for several reasons. First is that communication was basically done at the speed of a man walking. Second, that Many doctrinal questions had either not been raised or had not been clearly defined. Third, the Church was basically illegal for the first 300 or so years which tends to hamper efforts to codify things.
What is interesting to note is that, even with all of the hinderences, AND even without a defined NT canon, the Church spread and grew mightily.
This is due, partly to the efforts that the Churches made ot stay in communion with each other. To clarify and to implement the same teaching beliefs universally within the Church. Certainly this did not happen without friction among the Bishops and laity, but the importance of reconciling one’s personal beliefs to the unified and Spirit Guided Church was seen as the greater good. To be of One Mind as Christ Prayed.

This the thing we do not see among the NCC churches.
In ancient times, dispite all of the difficulties facing the early Church, Bishops would keep in touch with each other. Doctrinal teachings, problems and questions would be discussed and common answers sought. Where there was differences of opinion, whether scriptural or otherwise, prayerful resolution was sought so as to maintain unity.
This I do not see among the numerous NCC Churches.
Where there are differing interpretations there are, differing churches. Instead of seeking to be “Of one Mind” as Jesus prayed, there is a shriking of what “being of one mind” means. NCC Churches seem content to say that so long as you accept Jesus and the Bible, the rest is pretty much “Agree to disagree”.

I hope my friends don’t mind my blunt posting here and I hope I don’t come across harsh. It is not my intent.

But what I have learned from our discussion points to this simple fact.
If the early Churches were more independent they we so only at a local level. At the higher level they were all joined by the “Authority of The Church” and the agreed, universal teachings of the Bishops - Successors of the Apostles - of that Church.
This is where our NCC Brothers lose cohesion. While they accept the Bible, they do not accept that, for the sake of unity, there needs to be a common understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that there the Eucharist both is and is not the “Real Presence”.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that OSAS is true and false.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that Gay marriage is OK and Not OK.

These are fundamental differences that require that “The Church” speak with a single authority based on Scripture and History. As fine as the many NCC Churches are, this kind of unity is not found in the NCC Churches.

Thanks for listening.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

One thing to note here is that, regardless what the individual teaches in error, or the steps the church takes in dealing with the individual, the teachings of the Church remain the same, and they remain the same universally. The same cannot necessarily be said in the NCC world.

That is one way of looking at it. Another way would be to note that among Protestants there is an interpretation of Matt 18:15-17 that sees it as a call to serious action. The sanction imposed by those Protestants actually has “teeth”. If the offender doesn’t repent actual exclusion and separation results…which those Protestants (including me) understand to be the meaning of “let him be as a pagan/tax collector.”

In contrast, it seems that the RCC’s typical application of the direction in verse 17 has no “teeth” whatsoever. From Prodigal Son1’s comments it seems that he thinks that the “teeth” of the sanction have been eliminated with the abolishment of the OT law and that now you may/should treat a tax collector as Jesus treated Matthew (which might mean that you take him out for fish and chips and invite him to join a discipleship group with 11 others ). In any event, no teeth means no need for actual exclusion or separation and therefore a certain unity persists.
You (JRKH) and SonofMonica seem to think that the appropriate way for the church to handle it may be a very passive and very toothless approach. Often it is that the administration may or may not get around to looking at the matter within the offender’s lifetime and if it does, the administration may or may not impose a sanction. Again, no teeth means no need for actual exclusion or separation and therefore a unity persists.

It would seem, that to some extent, the greater unity enjoyed by those who identify themselves as RC is the result of the RCC’s failure to put any teeth into its application of Christ’s direction at Matt 18:15-17. I believe such to be an error as I cannot believe that Jesus intended the sanction to be that toothless….but then again, I don’t claim to be an infallible interpreter (and everyone seems to be in support of that self-assessment of mine)

Peace.

 

[Radical]

JRKH, all in all, not a bad summary. One thing though.

Earlier HisAlone had said:

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

You responded:

• And so you are - so long as you have been baptized in the trinitarian form *

Now you say:

Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that there the Eucharist both is and is not the “Real Presence”.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that OSAS is true and false.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that Gay marriage is OK and Not OK.

Please clarify. I have been baptized in the Trinitarian form, but I do not believe in a real bodily presence. Therefore, isn’t it your position that I am part of the same Church as you, but that I am a separated brother? Is it separated from communion but not separated from brotherhood?

As fine as the many NCC Churches are, this kind of unity is not found in the NCC Churches.

and that is a terrible shame.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, all in all, not a bad summary. One thing though.

Earlier HisAlone had said:

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

You responded:

• And so you are - so long as you have been baptized in the trinitarian form *

Now you say:

Originally Posted by JRKH
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that there the Eucharist both is and is not the “Real Presence”.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that OSAS is true and false.
Christians - belonging to the same Church cannot simultaniously hold that Gay marriage is OK and Not OK.

I shall try to clarify as best my limited knowledge will allow.
I am sure others will be able to better express it.

The Church recognizes that any person who is baptized using the trinitarian form is, indeed, a Christian, ans thus is a part of the Church Militant.
However, those who are baptized outside of the Catolic Church are in an “irregular” relationship with the Church, just as a person who is a non-practicing catholic would be.
a Non-Catholic such as yourself has not reached full communion with the Church wo which you belong by Baptism.
That is about the best I can explain it.

Now as to my somewhat confusing use of the term that you quote above, I can only say it relates to how we tend to use the term “The Church” in our normal conversations here.

Yet, what I say above IS true and you express it well in your last statement. It is a “terrible shame” that there is not true unity within the Body of Christ. These differences in beliefs simply cannot be the working of the Holy Spirit.
It’s not like we are quibbling over some practice or other. The things I listed above are deep issues that are critical items in terms of identity as Christians and our salvation.

I hope that this helps.

By the way, you are a good communicator and I anjoy conversing with you.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Radical,

I just now caught up on the last couple dozens posts on this thread, and I don’t think I’ll be able to respond to all the posts you’ve made which are worth responding to. But I would like to say, I don’t think that “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” becomes toothless as a result of Jesus’ treatment of tax collectors, nor do I think discipline in the RCC today is “toothless”. An excommunicant is not allowed to receive communion (just like a pagan is not allowed to receive communion) which I regard as a strong penalty.

 

[Peter_J]

The Church recognizes that any person who is baptized using the trinitarian form is, indeed, a Christian, ans thus is a part of the Church Militant.
However, those who are baptized outside of the Catolic Church are in an “irregular” relationship with the Church, just as a person who is a non-practicing catholic would be.
a Non-Catholic such as yourself has not reached full communion with the Church wo which you belong by Baptism.
That is about the best I can explain it.

By the way, you are a good communicator and I anjoy conversing with you.

and

 

[LutheranDK]

Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

I have never known anyone who held to such a view.
“the church”, at that time, was the local congregation. The word “Ekklæsia” (transliteration) is translated as “church”, and often rightly so. However, the word can also mean “gathering”, “assembly”, roughly equivalent to the Hebrew “QaHaL” (if I remember correctly).

 

[Radical]

Hi Radical,

Hi

I just now caught up on the last couple dozens posts on this thread, and I don’t think I’ll be able to respond to all the posts you’ve made which are worth responding to. But I would like to say, I don’t think that “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” becomes toothless as a result of Jesus’ treatment of tax collectors, nor do I think discipline in the RCC today is “toothless”. An excommunicant is not allowed to receive communion (just like a pagan is not allowed to receive communion) which I regard as a strong penalty.

I agree that excommunication is a strong penalty…it is, in fact the “teeth” that I point to in the Protestant practice.

I had said that it seems that the RCC’s typical application of the direction in verse 17 has no “teeth”…I said this not b/c excommunication lacks teeth, but b/c (rightly or wrongly I have gotten the impression that) the RCC’s typical application of the direction rarely results in a “conviction” and even more rarely in a “sentence”. In other words, a law may carry an extremely strong sentence such as the death penalty, but if the law is largely ignored such that charges are rarely laid… and when laid, prosecutions are rarely pursued… and when pursued, rarely result in convictions and sentencing, then the application of that law is typically “toothless”.

Out of curiousity does any one know how many excommunications per year are handed down by the Vatican? …and what is your (and JRKH’s) personal experience…how many times have you seen someone brought to the church (in your local church) as per Matt 18: 15-17?

God Bless You

 

[JRKH]

Hi

I agree that excommunication is a strong penalty…it is, in fact the “teeth” that I point to in the Protestant practice.

Yes but in the realm of the Protestant there absolutely nothing preventing a person “excommunicated” from your local community from opening another “branch” of “protestant” christianity down the street. In fact there may not even be anything keeping him from using your church’s “name” (As in (fill in the blank) Baptist).
This person can go on using the same Bible as you and interpreting scripture differently than you while claiming “Guidance” by the same the “Holy Spirit” as you and there is nothing that you can say about it because the Historical foundation of your own “Protestant” church is the rejection of the Authortiy and teachings of the Unified Church.

So what kind of “teeth” does this demonstrate in “The Protestant Practice”?

While the Catholic Church also cannot prevent someone from opening their own Church or usurping the name “Catholic”, The Church can. by virtue of it’s size and long history, make declaration that such person is excommunicated and his church is heretical.

I had said that it seems that the RCC’s typical application of the direction in verse 17 has no “teeth”…I said this not b/c excommunication lacks teeth, but b/c (rightly or wrongly I have gotten the impression that) the RCC’s typical application of the direction rarely results in a “conviction” and even more rarely in a “sentence”. In other words, a law may carry an extremely strong sentence such as the death penalty, but if the law is largely ignored such that charges are rarely laid… and when laid, prosecutions are rarely pursued… and when pursued, rarely result in convictions and sentencing, then the application of that law is typically “toothless”.

I agree that the church seems reticent to invoke excommunication. It is after all a heavy penalty. Also, excommunication may not be the best card to play in a given situation. The Church has many other sanctions that she can and does impose. In the one case you sited earlier the person was forbidden from teaching in a catholic school. This may not seem like much but it may well effect the persons ability to make a living and does actually place the person “on the outside” by preventing him from teaching the faithful.

Out of curiousity does any one know how many excommunications per year are handed down by the Vatican? …and what is your (and JRKH’s) personal experience…how many times have you seen someone brought to the church (in your local church) as per Matt 18: 15-17?

God Bless You

Actually excommunication can be by formal decree or by what is called a “latae sententiae excommunication”.

To Clarify:
The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.
(From the Article Here)

Given this type of “excommunication” is not formal or public it would be difficult to know how many have excommuncated themselves just on the abortion issue alone.

As for Formal excommunciations I found this with a quick search:

LaCrosse Tribune
Saturday, March 15, 2008

Burke declares 3 Roman Catholic Womenpriests excommunicated
(Full Article Here)

I’m sure if one wished they could locate other examples of formal excommunications.

Now as to my personal experience with persons brought before the Church, I cannot say I personally know of any. Generally I would say that such issues in a local sense are handled by the local clergy as quietly as possible to avoid scandal for anyone involved.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

Hi

I agree that excommunication is a strong penalty…it is, in fact the “teeth” that I point to in the Protestant practice.

I had said that it seems that the RCC’s typical application of the direction in verse 17 has no “teeth”…I said this not b/c excommunication lacks teeth, but b/c (rightly or wrongly I have gotten the impression that) the RCC’s typical application of the direction rarely results in a “conviction” and even more rarely in a “sentence”. In other words, a law may carry an extremely strong sentence such as the death penalty, but if the law is largely ignored such that charges are rarely laid… and when laid, prosecutions are rarely pursued… and when pursued, rarely result in convictions and sentencing, then the application of that law is typically “toothless”.

Out of curiousity does any one know how many excommunications per year are handed down by the Vatican? …and what is your (and JRKH’s) personal experience…how many times have you seen someone brought to the church (in your local church) as per Matt 18: 15-17?

God Bless You

You may be right regarding leniency. I don’t think that Matt 18: 15-17 weighs too heavily on most Catholics’ minds. Are there specific areas you’re thinking of (e.g. sexual morality)?

 

[Radical]

You may be right regarding leniency. I don’t think that Matt 18: 15-17 weighs too heavily on most Catholics’ minds. Are there specific areas you’re thinking of (e.g. sexual morality)?

No, not sexual morality…doctrinal disagreement if anything.

 

[Radical]

Yes but in the realm of the Protestant there absolutely nothing preventing a person “excommunicated” from your local community from opening another “branch” of “protestant” christianity down the street. …
So what kind of “teeth” does this demonstrate in “The Protestant Practice”?

You are right with the tendency to “just start my own”…that is a fault within the offender. The distinction it seems is this:

a) in the Protestant scenario, the church has put as much teeth into its actions as it can…but the problem lies in the offender’s refusal to listen and repent and his ability to start a separate church

b)in the RC scenario, it seems that the church does not typically take action and so the sanction doesn’t even come into play and so the offender is not forced by the “teeth” to decide whether he will repent or not

The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272)

Understood. IIRC SonofMonica referenced this earlier. The problem here is that unless the offender is self-enforcing the excommunication is only in “theory” and not in “practice”…also, it has nothing to do with the procedure set out by Jesus in Matt 18

Peace

 

[JRKH]

You are right with the tendency to “just start my own”…that is a fault within the offender. The distinction it seems is this:

a) in the Protestant scenario, the church has put as much teeth into its actions as it can…but the problem lies in the offender’s refusal to listen and repent and his ability to start a separate church

b)in the RC scenario, it seems that the church does not typically take action and so the sanction doesn’t even come into play and so the offender is not forced by the “teeth” to decide whether he will repent or not

Of course in the Protestant scenerio the offending person is given less opportunity for repentance. Instead it becomes yet another point of divergence within the Protestant warren of “bible based” belief systems.
In the RC scenerio, taking more time for discussion allows for greater opprotunity for repentance. It gives both sides to possibly avoid a split. In fact we could look at it as a situation whereby a person is given a greater opportunity to “Listen to the Church”.

Understood. IIRC SonofMonica referenced this earlier. The problem here is that unless the offender is self-enforcing the excommunication is only in “theory” and not in “practice”…also, it has nothing to do with the procedure set out by Jesus in Matt 18

Peace

Not at all.
You are looking at the temporal aspects and not the eternal aspects which is where the focus needs to be.
A person that is excommunicated is simply that. If they die unrepentant, they will have to face judgement with that on their soul.

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

In the RC scenerio, taking more time for discussion allows for greater opprotunity for repentance. It gives both sides to possibly avoid a split. In fact we could look at it as a situation whereby a person is given a greater opportunity to “Listen to the Church”.

agreed…but, this requires an ongoing discussion to actually take place and I wonder how often that takes place in the RCC approach. Also, an ongoing discussion is not (IMHO) what is contemplated in Jesus’s direction at verse 17. Jesus’s direction is followed by Paul at 1 Cor 5: 1-2.

Not at all.
You are looking at the temporal aspects and not the eternal aspects which is where the focus needs to be.

the teeth in the Protestant approach serves notice to the offender that the matter is a serious one…the temporal action is done b/c of the eternal aspects and the temporal action demands a response. Hopefully the response results in a healing as per 2 Cor 2: 5-10.

A person that is excommunicated is simply that. If they die unrepentant, they will have to face judgement with that on their soul.

it is my impression (and again it is only an impression and not something that I can base on statistics) that the inaction by the RCC does not drive home (to the one that has excommunicated himself) the seriousness of the eternal aspects.

Peace

 

[JRKH]

agreed…but, this requires an ongoing discussion to actually take place and I wonder how often that takes place in the RCC approach. Also, an ongoing discussion is not (IMHO) what is contemplated in Jesus’s direction at verse 17. Jesus’s direction is followed by Paul at 1 Cor 5: 1-2.

it is my impression (and again it is only an impression and not something that I can base on statistics) that the inaction by the RCC does not drive home (to the one that has excommunicated himself) the seriousness of the eternal aspects.

Well stated - and I must admit that I wish the Church would be a bit more “stern” with some of those who are more outspoken so that some who are less outspoken might get the message.
Of course, while I agree that the Church could be more strict in its enforcements, I still see the Catholic Church as holding the high ground in regards to “teeth” for no other reason than the fact that The RCC is not built upon the foundation of rejecting “Church” authority.

the teeth in the Protestant approach serves notice to the offender that the matter is a serious one…the temporal action is done b/c of the eternal aspects and the temporal action demands a response. Hopefully the response results in a healing as per 2 Cor 2: 5-10.
Peace

True - as far as it goes.
However, in the Protestant scenerio, once the person “Refuses to listen to The Church”, and goes up the road and opens his own church preaching his version of Christianity doesn’t he and his congregation then become just another part of the “Invisible Body of Christ?”
Isn’t this a rather huge flaw in the “invisible body” definition of the term “Church”?
Once a person has established a community of Christians (assuming trinitarian baptism) how can your community (the one who expelled him) then say that he is wrong and you are right? On what Authority would you base it since you are both claiming Spirit Led interpretation of Scripture and the roots of your NCC Churches both rest on the rejection of “Church” Authority for “Spirit Led, Scripture Alone” authority.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

The problem here is that unless the offender is self-enforcing the excommunication is only in “theory” and not in “practice”…also, it has nothing to do with the procedure set out by Jesus in Matt 18

Not necessarily: if a priest knows that someone has been excommunicated latae sententiae, he can deny him/her communion.

it is my impression (and again it is only an impression and not something that I can base on statistics) that the inaction by the RCC does not drive home (to the one that has excommunicated himself) the seriousness of the eternal aspects.

I think you hit the nail on the head. We’re not punishing people for the sake of punishing them. We’re actually trying to save them from a worse punishment. (In principle at least. There have been abuses in the Church, at times, including punishment-for-the-sake-of-punishment.)