The supposed lack of Ecclesiastical Discipline in our modern day

[God_Seeker_1]

Hello everyone,

This thread will be concerning the difficult doctrines of excommunication, ecclesiastical discipline, the love, and wrath of God. All my statements are not meant to criticize anyone personally, but this is strictly within the motives of trying to gain a better understanding of the Catholic doctrine of the Church and overcoming some of my own barriers that stand between myself and crossing the Tiber. Having said this, I would appreciate logically rigorous and mentally engaging comments. I ask any simple posts re-iterating simple catholic truths that simply dismiss the real logic of what is being presented.

Many Catholics today are concerned how public figures can be actively pro-abortion and yet be allowed in the Church. Not only are they still considered members of Christ’s body, they are allowed to receive the Eucharist. I can only think of a few names in particular, but this is just an example of something that “seems” to be widespread within the Catholic Church, at least in America.

My basic argument (thesis) is that the NT describes the Church as a community of people who have been saved from sin, Satan, the World, and death. This salvation if of course not applied in it’s totality at the moment of conversion, but it remains a process over which grave danger is possible in falling away. Grant this, the community itself remains this characteristic, that the individuals composed within it are all in the process of being saved from sin, particularly the practice of sin. Secondly, because this is a characteristic of the Church, it must stick out when someone or another is not exhibiting this processional redemption from sin, but rather is indulging in apathy or even public gross mortal sin. This type of behavior is immediately judged, if not by the minds of his/her peers, simply by the apparent contradiction between the ill-behaving person and the holiness and righteousness seeking others. Thirdly, because the Church is a community where the redemption of Christ is carried out, anyone who does not wish to continue as a participant in this process, comes under the discipline of the authorities. However much Jesus’ guidelines have been understood in various ways, it remains that ultimately, if a brother or sister remains impenitent over a particular sin, he/she is to be excommunicated, looked upon as a heathen and a tax collector, prayed for, and pleaded to be saved from sin.

Now, I grew up Catholic. I think many of you already understand how in American Catholicism, it can almost seem as though it is an open door policy with a dont-have-to-talk-to-anyone practicality. It seems as if the whole scenario is a public necessity where the viewers come and then go on their way. Kind of like a town meeting back hundreds of years ago, before a busy day in the town. This of course is not the will of the Pope, I’m sure. Hence his program of evangelization. But honestly ask yourself, when was the last time you had ever heard a priest get up and say , by name, "So and So was in the practice of sexual immorality, and despite our love and pleadings for him to repent and receive God’s mercy, he has refused to repent and we are now forced to make known this person as excommunicated from Christ’s Church until he repents. The Church requires you to shun this man, to have no fellowship with him, to not even speak a word to him until he repents. . ".

I am not saying that this has never happened. I am just curious because I have never heard of anyone being excommunicated by the Catholic Church, besides what we read in the ancient historical writings, up until medieval times.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

What I would like to engage here is the following: How can The Catholic Church be the true Church of Christ if indeed the NT teaches that the Church is the sanctified community who is accountable to penitential discipline for sin. When Paul describes the Church at Corinth, for instance, he says that they were all at “ONE TIME” fornicators, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, etc,etc,etc…but that they were “washed” and “sanctified” and “justified” in the name of the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. And it seems that this is why they could not welcome the fornicator among them anymore, but Paul’s command was to strictly excommunicate the man, deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Corinthians 5). Moreover, it seems that Jesus taught that the Church should not tolerate the presence of someone in the assembly who is in unrepentant sin (Matthew 18).

In fact, what I often hear from the Catholic perspective is exactly the opposite of what we read about the Catholic Church back in the early centuries. I heard modern day Catholics quoting “The Church is not a museum of saints , but a hospital for sinners” and various arguments as to why catholics should not judge others, or they even might mention the ancient Donatist controversy.

Well, the Donatist controversy really has no bearing on this subject, for St. Augustine was all for excommunicating sinners who were unrepentant. This whole time period was filled with public excommunications and strict regulations for obtaining the grace of reconciliation and re-communion with the Church. People were excommunicated for adultery, fornications, or idolatry, and the Bishop put them through years of penance before they could have the Eucharist (unless they were about to die).

So my main concern is thus: I am one of the rare voices who see the spiritual benefit and necessity of excommunication. The early Church understood penitential discipline as a necessary means for the sinning person to come to a deep and real repentance for his/her sin, to return them to a holy life in Christ, and for the community as a whole to fear the consequences of excommunication, so as to keep them living in the commands of Christ. Now, I see this being practiced in protestant churches all over the world. I have participating in a Church and have seen many excommunications. However, when I recall my past years in the Catholic Church, I don’t recall ever seeing this or even having this taught.

So what is the Church’s standing on this? Have any of you all seen a person excommunicated for moral sinning? And if you know that people are in outward sin, what keeps you from obeying Christ, Paul, and the exhortations of the Didache to excommunicate offending members of the body of Christ (obviously through the bishop/presbyters)?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

bump

 

[TimothyH]

But honestly ask yourself, when was the last time you had ever heard a priest get up and say , by name, "So and So was in the practice of sexual immorality, and despite our love and pleadings for him to repent and receive God’s mercy, he has refused to repent and we are now forced to make known this person as excommunicated from Christ’s Church until he repents. The Church requires you to shun this man, to have no fellowship with him, to not even speak a word to him until he repents. . ".

Such an action by a priest would be a wildly irresponsible. If I heard a priest do that to someone, I would walk out of the Church and never go back. I would never speak to the man again.

Publically humiliating someone like that could have an effect on the person’s marriage, their relationship with their children, neighbors and business associates. The man could loose his job. What if the local town newspaper heard about it and ran a story? What would the effect be on the person’s family? Telling other parishoner’s to “Shun” the man indicates an incredible lack of judgement.

I spent 37 years in the Church as an unrepentant sinner. God was simply being patient. It is one thing to exhort someone to repentance, but quite another to wreck a man’s life and destroy the lives of his family in the process.

The measure with which we measure will be measured out to us. That was Christ’s promise. Before we start calling for blood, we had better be willing to shed our own. Every single one of us is an unrepentant sinner - we are gluttonous, we curse people in our heart, we lust after other men’s wives and look at their legs as they recieve communion, not 30 seconds after having recieved Jesus ourselves.

Before we start calling for the excommunication of others, we had better be ready to accept the same “Spiritual benefit” ourselves.

-Tim-

 

[God_Seeker_1]

TimothyH,

I appreciate your response. But as I mentioned in the post introduction, " I would appreciate logically rigorous and mentally engaging comments. I ask any simple posts re-iterating simple catholic truths that simply dismiss the real logic of what is being presented."

What you have responded with is personal opinion and your own personal experience. You have not given any intellectual comment which corresponds to my post. I mean no insult to you, but I will respond accordingly. How can you read 1 Corinthians 5, examine that St. Paul commanded the Corinthians Church to publicly excommunicate the sinning man, and still have any respect for him? And if you exclusive this to the situation in Corinth, you still have Paul’s other commands to excommunicate the disobedient (Rom 16:17-19; 2 Thess 3:6, 13-15). You also have the commands of Jesus which say for the whole Church to consider the unrepentant man as a heathen and a tax collector. Your arguments that public excommunication would have a negative influence on the excommunicated man does not in any way erase the clear testimony of our Lord Jesus, the Holy Apostles, and the earliest bishops of the Church (who practiced excommunication). Please, any future comments should be intellectual rigorous. Having said that, I will still respond to your comment in a spirit of love, gentleness, and humility.

I understand you call yourself an unrepentant sinner, and that you were one in the Church for 37 years. Would you have considered yourself heaven-bound during this process of unrepentance? Would you have fit the description of what the NT and the unanimous consensus of christian history describes as a christian? Simply asked, do you consider unrepentant sinners, those who seek after the flesh and live in a perpetual habitual and willfull pattern of sin, to be saved and forgiven? If so, how should we describe what St. Paul says in the following:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[d] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brothers,[e] we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For* if you live according to the flesh you will die**, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:1-17)*

And

Or do you not know that the unrighteous* will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were** some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy,[d] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.* 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Galatians 5:15-24)

And here what St. John says:

• Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning*. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9** No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s** seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.**** 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:4-10)

These are just a few examples. But I think it is clear that there is a moral difference between those human beings who are in the world, who are not sanctified, who are not baptized, who are not children of God versus those who are. And this distinction is not a mild one, it determines one’s eternal destiny. I hope you can agree with this.*

 

[God_Seeker_1]

bump

 

[PeterGStanley]

Instead of using St Paul’s words I’ll use Jesus statement:

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

There isn’t any Humility in thinking oneself as righteous - it is by grace that we get there not by our own actions - we are ALL sinners.Theres going to be some really shocked people when they get to heaven when they see someone they have condemned in their mind who repented on there death bed or later in life and was saved - its never too late to be saved - Gods grace will save many and it is Gods grace that has saved us.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

PeterGStanley,

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunaltey, this is also unhelpful, as you are just ignoring Jesus’ other clear statements on excommunicating offending brothers. Out of kindness, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not aware of what else Jesus has to say about the way the Church is to be governed.

The problem with you pointing to the situation of Jesus’ sitting down with tax collectors is that this really has no bearing on the question. I am not here promoting that the Church should keep itself away from sinners. The Church is commanded to be merciful and to reach out to the lost and dying, those who are living in sin, to bring them into the fold of Christ where they are forgiven and cleansed.

What I am speaking to is the situation when one has come into the Church, been baptized into the Church, and then later on goes into the practice of sin. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the previous two posters that they are simply unaware of the practice of the Catholic Church, Popes, and Bishops in the first 900 years of the Church. It was very common for a fornicator to be required to give public confession of his/her sin prior to restoration, after being publicly excommunicated. If you were aware of the Catholic Church and how it regulated pennitential discipline, you may not like it, I am assuming based on you guys’s answers.

Anyhow, there is no erasing what Jesus said in Matthew 18 “If he does not listen to the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector”. This is a command of Jesus Christ, to actively perceive the impenitent person as lost, not saved, as a heathen and a tax collector, as one who is not among the redeemed. Therefore, I did not make this up, nor has any Bishop in history who has practiced excommunication.

While Jesus was very practiced at being merciful to the worst of sinners, he did not wish his Church to tolerate a willful persistence in sin after they have come into the realm of God’s forgiveness and grace. If you read the first 3 chapters of Revelation 3, we do not get the American picture of Jesus as a very soft spoken, all-loving, all-accepting God…rather he has demands of repentance and threats of judgement. Again, I did not make this up, the Catholic Church confirmed the inclusion of revelation into the Canon back in the Ecumenical Counciles (300-400AD).

Therefore, I would appreciate if someone can respond accordingly to the logic I presented in the first comment with more of a thought-process which is informed by what the “whole” bible and the “whole” jesus has said in the “whole” of revelation (both Scripture and Tradition).

 

[MarcoPolo]

There are excommunications and disciplines taking place. Maybe not as much as we’d like to see, but they do exist. Some examples I’ve saved over the years include:

In the early 1930s, The German bishops excommunicated any and all Catholics who joined the Nazi party, wore the uniform, or flew the swastika flag (including Adolph Hitler).
Zenit
PTWF

Fr. Feeney excommunicated

Pope Benedict XVI excommunicated 2 Chinese bishops

Archbishop Burke, 2008, excommunicated Sister Lears

2008 excommunication notice of priest “ordaining” women

Pope Benedict XVI reiterates Latae Sententiae excommunication of pro-abortion politicians

Etc… This list is by no means exhaustive and only contains stories I’ve found and happened to save.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

There are excommunications and disciplines taking place. Maybe not as much as we’d like to see, but they do exist. Some examples I’ve saved over the years include:

In the early 1930s, The German bishops excommunicated any and all Catholics who joined the Nazi party, wore the uniform, or flew the swastika flag (including Adolph Hitler).
Zenit
PTWF

Fr. Feeney excommunicated

Pope Benedict XVI excommunicated 2 Chinese bishops

Archbishop Burke, 2008, excommunicated Sister Lears

2008 excommunication notice of priest “ordaining” women

Pope Benedict XVI reiterates Latae Sententiae excommunication of pro-abortion politicians

Etc… This list is by no means exhaustive and only contains stories I’ve found and happened to save.

Thank you for this information. That is encouraging to hear.

But now that we have a couple of comments from Catholics who sort of demonstrate the issue that I have brought up in the first post, we can take this moment to take issue with some of the things which have been said.

I find that many people, not just Catholics, but almost any unbeliever, but also even protestants (although less in protestants), understand the Church as a community of all types of peoples. And when I say “types” I do not refer to differing personalities, personal sinful struggles, ethnicity’s, cultures, etc,etc. What I mean by “types” is the far range between a person who is a struggling sinner who is trying to keep the commands of Christ but finds himself a poor beggar at the altar of Christ (this is the tax collector in the story of the Pharisee and the Tax collector where the tax collector is justified) and the person in the Church who has known to be in adultery, whose life demonstrates no Christ-likeness, there is no brokeness over sin, and who is setting a bad example for the rest of the flock. For some people, these two types of people are equally welcomed into the Church with no extra conditions. In fact, there are some who would condemn people for not welcoming the adulterer, or fornicator, or thief, etc,etc. Now, when I say this, I am referring to people who have been baptized and are in the community already, who afterward commit and return to the life of sin; not first time comers. The Church should welcome the worst of sinners to come in and receive the life of salvation. I am not referring to this group of people however, I hope you understand.

For starters, we should respond to what I posted in the first post, namely, that St. Paul commanded the Corinthians Church to “publicly” excommunicate the fornicating man, as a way to Glorify God and preserve the salvation of the whole Church. It seems that modern day “christians” would have had very little respect for Paul’s thinking here, maybe even begin to condemn him. How dare he?

Moreover, to avoid the notion that this was just a Corinthian situation, Paul commands the same thing to the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:11-14). Jesus commanded public excommunication. And these scenarios are not ridiculously scandalous (minus the corinthian fornicator). For Jesus, a simple unwillingness to repent over a small dispute between two brothers is reason to publicly excommunicate. Similarly, Paul speaks of excommunicating brothers in Thessalonica who wish not to obey the Epistles of Paul.

let’s start by responding to this in particular; and then moving ahead to explain how you think the Catholic Church is really practicing this…

 

[God_Seeker_1]

It might help to realize what St. Paul is saying specifically in the following verses:
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11) I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one./U] 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church** whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”**

We can see here how Paul’s thinking process goes in a much different direction than what has been presented in this thread. If you do not mind, I will point out that Paul makes it clear that Christians are not to “associate” with someone who calls themselves a brother but yet is in the practice of sin, even to avoid sitting down and eating with the person. This is pretty harsh excommunication. Today, this sort of thing is repugnant to modern man. The modern mind is self-oriented, and this sort of thing is horribly offensive. We can see this in TimothyH’s commitment to walk out of a Priest ever got up and obeyed the apostle Paul in excommunicating an adulterer or a fornicator. This is the sort of thing which I believe goes overlooked in many places, and is one of the many barriers between myself and crossing the Tiber, especially at the moment.

However, this practice does not go unknown in many reformed protestant circles, which I give them credit for. They are not ashamed of obeying Christ in this matter. How can the Catholics Church face this lack?*

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Also if you read the letters of Ignatius and 1 Clement, you see a huge emphasis on repentance and the necessity of a holy life to be within the assembly which unites itself to the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Bump. Anyone? Lol

 

[nicolakirwan]

Hi God Seeker. Perhaps it would be helpful to approach things from a different angle. Let’s say that the lack of ecclesiastical discipline and congregational discipline in the Church is the result of sin on the part of the priests and bishops. Say they aren’t doing what they are supposed to do and God is displeased. What conclusion would you draw from that as it relates to entering the Catholic Church? Would your conclusion be the same or different for entering or remaining in a different Christian community?

The issue of sin in the clergy will be a perennial one that does not just relate to this issue. So I think that one has to figure out what their response will be to sin in the congregation and amongst the leadership in general before addressing any particular issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

What I would like to engage here is the following: How can The Catholic Church be the true Church of Christ if indeed the NT teaches that the Church is the sanctified community who is accountable to penitential discipline for sin. When Paul describes the Church at Corinth, for instance, he says that they were all at “ONE TIME” fornicators, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, etc,etc,etc…but that they were “washed” and “sanctified” and “justified” in the name of the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. And it seems that this is why they could not welcome the fornicator among them anymore, but Paul’s command was to strictly excommunicate the man, deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Corinthians 5). Moreover, it seems that Jesus taught that the Church should not tolerate the presence of someone in the assembly who is in unrepentant sin (Matthew 18).

In fact, what I often hear from the Catholic perspective is exactly the opposite of what we read about the Catholic Church back in the early centuries. I heard modern day Catholics quoting “The Church is not a museum of saints , but a hospital for sinners” and various arguments as to why catholics should not judge others, or they even might mention the ancient Donatist controversy.

Well, the Donatist controversy really has no bearing on this subject, for St. Augustine was all for excommunicating sinners who were unrepentant. This whole time period was filled with public excommunications and strict regulations for obtaining the grace of reconciliation and re-communion with the Church. People were excommunicated for adultery, fornications, or idolatry, and the Bishop put them through years of penance before they could have the Eucharist (unless they were about to die).

So my main concern is thus: I am one of the rare voices who see the spiritual benefit and necessity of excommunication. The early Church understood penitential discipline as a necessary means for the sinning person to come to a deep and real repentance for his/her sin, to return them to a holy life in Christ, and for the community as a whole to fear the consequences of excommunication, so as to keep them living in the commands of Christ. Now, I see this being practiced in protestant churches all over the world. I have participating in a Church and have seen many excommunications. However, when I recall my past years in the Catholic Church, I don’t recall ever seeing this or even having this taught.

So what is the Church’s standing on this? Have any of you all seen a person excommunicated for moral sinning? And if you know that people are in outward sin, what keeps you from obeying Christ, Paul, and the exhortations of the Didache to excommunicate offending members of the body of Christ (obviously through the bishop/presbyters)?

Seeker,

How am I to know who is sinning? The priest cannot break vow and tell everyone. If there is scandal that is obvious that is one thing. Concerning the NT Church. It grew up. When you consider anything in time as a record of what it was, it still is and more. The Amish are a record of what was not what is. Beliefs remain the same however to impose NT interpretation on what you percieve to be what you think it to be based on telescope looking back 2000 years does not take into account the likes of Henry the VIII asking for a decree of nullity and the result of that effort.

Anglicans have changed and bear little resemblance to the NT allowing Homosexuals and women to be priests. Is this in the NT you speak of?

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Thank you guys for your responses.

For starters, I am part of the Traditional Anglican Communion and we do not accept the ordination of women nor homosexuality. Many of our churches have come into full communion with the Roman See.

Secondly, to answer the question on whether the issue of ecclesiastical discipline has any bearing on the issue of joining the Catholic Church or not. This thread hits on the very specific issue of Church discipline, but it also kicks in to the very nature of the Church herself. It is my understanding that the Church is the body of Christ because through baptism the human being is joined to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in some powerful and mystical way, which also means they have died to sin and have been made alive to God for holy and righteous living (Romans 6:1-11). In other words, there is a direct connection between baptism, becoming part of the body of Christ, co-crucifixion/co-resurrection, and being enslaved to God and His righteousness (Rom 6:20-23). To dumb it down even further, being a part of the body of Christ means being a slave unto righteousness. If there is someone who is in the visible body (local) of Christ who is proven, either by confession or corroborative evidence, to be impenitent in some certain mortal sin, and after many pleadings to “repent” (Matthew 18), Jesus commanded the Church that the whole assembly is to view this person as a heathen and a tax collector.

Paul the apostles taught that “A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Therefore purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump” (1 Cor 5:4-10). Paul taught that for the Corinthians to continue allowing the impenitent man in the assembly of the body of Christ would eventually have damning effects on the whole of the body, much like leavens affects the whole bread. His solution was to put away the evil person from you.

Finally, one of the elements of Catholicism which caused me to turn away from it (I was born and raised catholic) was that anybody can come to Church, take the Eucharist, be highly respected, and a weekly mass attender, but yet live in the bars and clubs and all. I am not saying that official Catholic teaching endorses these things, but it just “seems” like this was pervasive in my upbringing. My own grandparents and parents are avid Catholics, but none of them are true disciples of Jesus Christ. They openly endorse and support many things such as drunkenness, fornication, clubbing out late at night, worldliness, etc,etc,etc. And this was not just something that was performed by my own family, but with all our Catholics family friends. It seemed like no one was really interested in what God had to think about their lives. But they were all Mass attenders. So far as I see it, the Roman Catholic Catechism teaches that mortal sin ruins one’s relationship to God and the body of Christ and that the sacrament of penance is require to restore that saving grace. But it just seems like many Catholic parishes, and maybe this is just something that I notice in Florida, do not even have a principle or mechanism by which excommunication is even possible.

Our Lord Jesus commanded the disciples to excommunicate someone who simply does not want to confess his/her sin (Matthew 18). How dare we avoid obeying Him? The natural result of not excommunicating false “believers” can be that our pews are filled with “nominal” people who have no real faith in their hearts, and have no true discipleship in the lives. And not only that, but this eventually can become the norm through which the next generations become under the impression that, to be saved and to be forgiven, you just have to show up to Church.

As an evangelical protestant (I am currently in transition), I have spent years evangelizing Catholics either door to door or open air preaching, and it seems as though many did not even accept Catholic teachings. Topics such as hell, judgement, sin, righteousness, the call to self denial, and the like are repugnant to some. You get this from protestants as well, so there is no singling out anyone. But what I have noticed is that in many protestant churches, there is a mechanism through which the impenitent are excommunicated, even publicly, until repentance is evident. I think this fosters a community where hypocrisy and false believing is exterminated out and where the members are well aware of the need to be holy for Christ our Lord; and it releases some of the problems such as unfaithful members being the norm.

 

[nicolakirwan]

God Seeker, we have had very similar experiences. I, like you, was brought up Catholic, and I like you, left the Church in frustration and was received into the Anglican Communion. I’ve recently returned to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic spiritual leaders in charge of us did not show any inclination to turn individuals away from communion if they were openly and unrepentantly living sinfully. Nor was even a warning given outside of the Mass. The majority of individuals I was surrounded by, though from Catholic families, showed little or no interest in pursuing Christ. I was very active in Catholic campus ministry and so saw that even among some who were leading that there seemed to be a “lukewarmness” at times.

Now, the Catholic Church does not officially teach or endorse such, but it is a real problem when one encounters it on the ground. It reflects sin on the part of the clergy, religious and teachers who are neglecting their duties and perhaps have even ceased to affirm the faith as taught by the Church. One might rightfully feel frustrated by such, but at the end of the day someone else’s sin cannot affect your faithfulness to the truth. What is necessary to determine is whether the claims of the Catholic Church are valid, and if so, the failure of individuals within Catholicism should not change your obedience to the truth that has been revealed to you.

As a practical matter, it can feel isolating and discouraging if it appears that few care about honoring Christ. Proverbs tells us that iron sharpens iron and elsewhere in Scripture we are told not to neglect fellowship with one another. So we need one another to grow. Thankfully there are a number of lay groups with likeminded members who are devoted to holy living and growing with one another. (There’s also an Ordinariate for Anglicans, which it seems you know of already)

Think of how the Catholic Church would be benefitted if more individuals who see what is required were working from within to help present the Bride as spotless. It’s not just upon the clergy–but laypersons play a large part too. Because the reality of the situation is that sin amongst Christians will be anywhere you go; and even if a person is removed from a congregation for openly sinning, there will still be others whose sin is secret and still has a negative impact on the Body.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thank you guys for your responses.

For starters, I am part of the Traditional Anglican Communion and we do not accept the ordination of women nor homosexuality. Many of our churches have come into full communion with the Roman See.

Secondly, to answer the question on whether the issue of ecclesiastical discipline has any bearing on the issue of joining the Catholic Church or not. This thread hits on the very specific issue of Church discipline, but it also kicks in to the very nature of the Church herself. It is my understanding that the Church is the body of Christ because through baptism the human being is joined to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in some powerful and mystical way, which also means they have died to sin and have been made alive to God for holy and righteous living (Romans 6:1-11). In other words, there is a direct connection between baptism, becoming part of the body of Christ, co-crucifixion/co-resurrection, and being enslaved to God and His righteousness (Rom 6:20-23). To dumb it down even further, being a part of the body of Christ means being a slave unto righteousness. If there is someone who is in the visible body (local) of Christ who is proven, either by confession or corroborative evidence, to be impenitent in some certain mortal sin, and after many pleadings to “repent” (Matthew 18), Jesus commanded the Church that the whole assembly is to view this person as a heathen and a tax collector.

Paul the apostles taught that “A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Therefore purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump” (1 Cor 5:4-10). Paul taught that for the Corinthians to continue allowing the impenitent man in the assembly of the body of Christ would eventually have damning effects on the whole of the body, much like leavens affects the whole bread. His solution was to put away the evil person from you.

Finally, one of the elements of Catholicism which caused me to turn away from it (I was born and raised catholic) was that anybody can come to Church, take the Eucharist, be highly respected, and a weekly mass attender, but yet live in the bars and clubs and all. I am not saying that official Catholic teaching endorses these things, but it just “seems” like this was pervasive in my upbringing. My own grandparents and parents are avid Catholics, but none of them are true disciples of Jesus Christ. They openly endorse and support many things such as drunkenness, fornication, clubbing out late at night, worldliness, etc,etc,etc. And this was not just something that was performed by my own family, but with all our Catholics family friends. It seemed like no one was really interested in what God had to think about their lives. But they were all Mass attenders. So far as I see it, the Roman Catholic Catechism teaches that mortal sin ruins one’s relationship to God and the body of Christ and that the sacrament of penance is require to restore that saving grace. But it just seems like many Catholic parishes, and maybe this is just something that I notice in Florida, do not even have a principle or mechanism by which excommunication is even possible.

Our Lord Jesus commanded the disciples to excommunicate someone who simply does not want to confess his/her sin (Matthew 18). How dare we avoid obeying Him? The natural result of not excommunicating false “believers” can be that our pews are filled with “nominal” people who have no real faith in their hearts, and have no true discipleship in the lives. And not only that, but this eventually can become the norm through which the next generations become under the impression that, to be saved and to be forgiven, you just have to show up to Church.

As an evangelical protestant (I am currently in transition), I have spent years evangelizing Catholics either door to door or open air preaching, and it seems as though many did not even accept Catholic teachings. Topics such as hell, judgement, sin, righteousness, the call to self denial, and the like are repugnant to some. You get this from protestants as well, so there is no singling out anyone. But what I have noticed is that in many protestant churches, there is a mechanism through which the impenitent are excommunicated, even publicly, until repentance is evident. I think this fosters a community where hypocrisy and false believing is exterminated out and where the members are well aware of the need to be holy for Christ our Lord; and it releases some of the problems such as unfaithful members being the norm.

Seeker,

You appear to be chasing imperfection. Agreed that there is scandal and those that fail to heed the call to God. You have the ability to change their behavior. You have power to change the behavior of those people you speak of. Can you imagine having that power. Can you imagine being the person that changes someone else.

Protestants lack the fullness of truth and to proclaim that they have ways of causing some to depart means little in the context of what are they being sent away from. Mormons do the same thing. Does this make their community more real and more truthful. Jehovah Witness do the same. This means nothing.

Evangelizing the ignorant and ill disposed means you evangelized the ignorant and ill disposed it means nothing as far as the Faith is concerned. Who is responsbile for Catechesis?

God calls. People respond. People are people and they are weak and frail and they sometimes do not heed the call. We pray that all heed the call but there is little you can do other than what I said about the power you have in changing their behavior.

This is the best you can hope for.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Thank you for your consideration. At this point I would simply ask ifyou could interact with the apologetics I have written out and demonstrated from the scriptures. I’ve receieved many exhortations to not judge or chase perfection, which is helpful, nut it has not really engaged my arguments.
Thanks

 

[nicolakirwan]

Thank you for your consideration. At this point I would simply ask ifyou could interact with the apologetics I have written out and demonstrated from the scriptures. I’ve receieved many exhortations to not judge or chase perfection, which is helpful, nut it has not really engaged my arguments.
Thanks

I think the issue is that there is nothing flawed in your understanding of what the Lord requires of His church. The Scripture verses you pointed out are relevant and applicable to us today. So it’s not a question of apologetics, but rather disobedience within the church amongst congregants and pastoral leadership. So, given your assessment that God demands something more of His Church than what you see commonly practiced, what does the Lord expect our response to be when we see such things?