What does this Verse Mean to Non Catholics

[Publisher]

I think you’ll have to get a different Protestant to answer your question, a Friends answer would mean little to you…I do not subscribe to “sola scriptura”, and see the writing of the NT as those first disciples attempt to understand who Jesus was, I do not believe any of the writings of the NT were written by “original apostles”, but are a product of one branch of Christianity which eventually became dominant…various schools of thought…Pauline, Johanine, Thomas, Markan, Marcion, Gnostic, James group of Ebionites etc.

My view is much more akin to the writer of the “PreNicene New Testament”…excellent read by the way and Eilene Pagels expostions in “The Gnostic Gospels” and “Beyond Belief”…both a couple of my favorite books.

I see the Catholic/Orthodox churches as a continuation of the branch of Christianity which became dominant, and part of that dominance was by aligning itself with the Roman government…something other “Christian groups” at the time didn’t do…“revisionist” you say…I’m ok with that…such an epithet doesn’t make me cringe.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I think you’ll have to get a different Protestant to answer your question, a Friends answer would mean little to you…I do not subscribe to “sola scriptura”, and see the writing of the NT as those first disciples attempt to understand who Jesus was, I do not believe any of the writings of the NT were written by “original apostles”, but are a product of one branch of Christianity which eventually became dominant…various schools of thought…Pauline, Johanine, Thomas, Markan, Marcion, Gnostic, James group of Ebionites etc.

QUOTE]

That’s a very interesting view. I agree that it is not relevant to most of protestantism.

 

[O.S.Luke]

From the NAB, Matt 18:15-20:

15 “If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 17 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

The note at v. 17, taken from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, says

[17]
The church: the second of the only two instances of this word in the gospels; see the note on Matthew 16:18. Here it refers not to the entire church of Jesus, as in Matthew 16:18, but to the local congregation. Treat him . . . a Gentile or a tax collector: just as the observant Jew avoided the company of Gentiles and tax collectors, so must the congregation of Christian disciples separate itself from the arrogantly sinful member who refuses to repent even when convicted of his sin by the whole church. Such a one is to be set outside the fellowship of the community. The harsh language about Gentile and tax collector probably reflects a stage of the Matthean church when it was principally composed of Jewish Christians. That time had long since passed, but the principle of exclusion for such a sinner remained. Paul makes a similar demand for excommunication in 1 Cor 5:1-13.

The Greek word is ἐκκλησί - which can mean the Body of believers, or the local assembly/congregation. The Catholic bishops agree with most other biblical scholarship that Jesus was referring to the local assembly, and not the church catholic/universal.

And even if it did mean the church catholic, that would not be a problem with those traditions that hold to the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed, such as the Anglican/Methodists, the Lutherans, etc. One is baptized into the church catholic - the Body of Believers.

So, in answer to your OP, “What does this Verse Mean to Non Catholics,” I would say that it means the same thing to non-Catholics as it does to Catholics.

O+

 

[onenow1]

From the NAB, Matt 18:15-20:

The note at v. 17, taken from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, says

The Greek word is ἐκκλησί - which can mean the Body of believers, or the local assembly/congregation. The Catholic bishops agree with most other biblical scholarship that Jesus was referring to the local assembly, and not the church catholic/universal.

And even if it did mean the church catholic, that would not be a problem with those traditions that hold to the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed, such as the Anglican/Methodists, the Lutherans, etc. One is baptized into the church catholic - the Body of Believers.

IQuote= onenow1,Indeedi It does mean the CC and one of these bodies must have authority. I agree most have proper baptism, and are certainly under the umbrella of the catholic church, but they lack the entire deposit of faith, through no fault of their own.
Unless in their heart of hearts they know the CC is indeed the one true church.
Then they would be required to enter, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your post seems to suggese the CC is indeed the church of apostolic times ?

Peace, OneNow1

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Believers.

So, in answer to your OP, “What does this Verse Mean to Non Catholics,” I would say that it means the same thing to non-Catholics as it does to Catholics.

O+

I don’t think it could.

Here’s why:

There is something known as the Catholic Church. There is not something known as the protestant Church.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I don’t think it could.

Here’s why:

There is something known as the Catholic Church. There is not something known as the protestant Church.

I think it has to, since Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that v. 17 means the same thing - a local assembly, not the Body of Believers.

It’s hard to argue with the Catholic Bishops, isn’t it?

 

[O.S.Luke]

IQuote= onenow1,Indeedi It does mean the CC and one of these bodies must have authority. I agree most have proper baptism, and are certainly under the umbrella of the catholic church, but they lack the entire deposit of faith, through no fault of their own.
Unless in their heart of hearts they know the CC is indeed the one true church.
Then they would be required to enter, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Your post seems to suggese the CC is indeed the church of apostolic times ?

Peace, OneNow1

My post doesn’t suggest anything of the sort - and most of my post is verbatim from the American Catholic bishops. As the Catholic bishops noted, it was talking about the Matthean Church when it was composed of Jewish Christians - loosely organized, and meeting in secret.

Pentecost hadn’t even happened yet, nor had Christ’s crucifixion. So I don’t think it was the New Testament Church as we knew it. I’ve never seen any Catholic NT scholar that thought otherwise.

O+

 

[hays1122]

How would this verse make sense if, for example, a baptist and a methodist had a dispute?

Why a baptist and a methodist?
I mean,shouldn’t this question apply to any church member of any denomination?
I would think that this verse means that if you have a problem that hasn’t been solved. You should try talking to your pastor or priest.
And if the other person is also a church member,then that person will also meet with their pastor. And with the help of a third party maybe the problem will be resolved peacefully.
To answer what the verse means to a non-catholic.
I found this in my bible commentary:
“The church here may mean the whole assembly of believers;
or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases–
the representatives of the church, or those who act for them.
In the Jewish synagogue there was a bench of elders,
before whom trials of this kind were brought.
It was to be brought to the church, in order that he might
be admonished, entreated, and, if possible, reformed.
This was, and is always to be, the first business in disciplining
an offending brother.
The Jews gave the name heathen or Gentile to all other nations
but themselves. With them they had no religious intercourse
or communion.
Publicans were men of abandoned character, and the Jews
would have nothing to do with them. The meaning of this is,
cease to have religious conversation with him, to acknowledge
him as a brother. Regard him as obstinate, self-willed, and guilty.
It does not mean that we should cease to show kindness to him,
and aid him in affliction or trial; for this is required towards all men;
but it means that we should disown him as a Christian brother,
and treat him as we do other men not connected with the church.
This should not be done till all these steps are taken.
This is the only way of kindness. This is the only way to preserve
peace and purity in the church.”
Hope this helps you understand the verse.

 

[onenow1]

My post doesn’t suggest anything of the sort - and most of my post is verbatim from the American Catholic bishops. As the Catholic bishops noted, it was talking about the Matthean Church when it was composed of Jewish Christians - loosely organized, and meeting in secret.

Pentecost hadn’t even happened yet, nor had Christ’s crucifixion. So I don’t think it was the New Testament Church as we knew it. I’ve never seen any Catholic NT scholar that thought otherwise.

O+

Reply: WOW ??? Pentecost, Crucifiction ???

Matt. 16:17-18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peace, onenow1

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2;4274376:

Again, Peter’s role from a Protestant perspective is not the same as it is from a Catholics perspective…you read “hierarchical” in these verses, Protestants do not.

Also, a Protestant would understand Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God as being the Rock upon which the church(body of believers) is built, similar to the Orthodox…not on Peter himself…your position is a Catholic one, and that is how you read the verse…we read it differently.

Our starting positions are different, one must make assumptions from both traditions to come up with their understandings…

Either Scripture is a matter of opinion (in which case it would differ) or it is a matter of truth (in which case there should only be one).

In the Aramaic it read: “You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church” so from the original it is clearly meant Peter.

And Peter’s primacy is not only illustrated in this incident, there is the one after the ressurection where He tells him feed my lambs,etc and the time before the passion when Christ said that the He has prayed for Peter that his faith will not fail …strengthen your brethren.”

Christ established only one Church. If the church is the body of believers then how come there is a multitude of protestant churches each **believing **something different.

Someone said to me that in his opinion denominatioins are okay.

But our opinions are of no importance in this matter because ultimately it is what Christ wants that’s important and this mish mash of denominations is not what He wants.

 

[Cat]

I’m going to get back to the question. I was born and raised evangelical Protestant (Baptist) and was a faithful, enthusiastic, very active participant in such churches until I turned 47 four years ago. I knew my share of conflict in Protestant churches. I’m not exactly a “quiet” person.

My first thought when I read the example given above of a Methodist and a Baptist was rather smart-alecky–“A Methodist and a Baptist wouldn’t be associating with each other.”

Well, I thought about it and I believe that my answer isn’t so smart-alecky after all.

Many Protestant Christians, especially the evangelicals and Pentecostals, stick to their own churches when it comes to friendships. They may have acquaintances “on the outside”, but not close friends. It’s been my experience that conflicts don’t often occur between acquaintances.

Fundamentalist Protestant Christians would definitely NOT be associating with anyone outside of their churches. Separatism is part of their doctrine. There are fundamentalists who won’t even associate with anyone outside of their own church.

Non-denominational Protestant Christians will be like evangelicals–most likely they will stick with their fellowship when it comes to close friendships.

All of you who weren’t raised in these traditions need to realize that this separatism is not necessarily due to doctrine or lack of brotherly love. The fact is, these Protestants Christians are simply TOO BUSY in their own churches to have any time left to cultivate relationships and friendships with people outside of their churches. The non-denominational Christians are especially busy because they are constly trying to hold their church together and recruit new people; they don’t have a “denomination” to bail them out in the event of financial problems, etc.

In the evangelical Protestant churches that I attended, my husband and I generally had something going on every evening–I am not exaggerating. If we did have a free evening, we generally spent it preparing a lesson or a craft or a presentation or music for the activity scheduled for another evening in our church. It was a whirlwind of constant activity. I often think that if Catholics could get a grip on this concept and understand it, they would be better equipped to reach out to and evangelize evangelical Protestants!

(When we were kicked out of our evangelical Protestant church in 2002), one of the most awful things was having nothing to do. We went from having every day and evening filled with church activities to NOTHING. We actually turned on the TV on a Wednesday for the first time in decades!)

My point is that conflicts between Protestant Christians from different denominations don’t happen very often.

Perhaps in the political realm, they occur, as the pro-life Protestant Christians clash with the pro-choice Protestant Something-or-others (Sorry, I can’t accept that a true Christian is pro-choice). But the type of conflicts that would require intervention from a mediator just aren’t very common because these Christians don’t interact enough to get into fights!

I mentioned the pro-life issue above. Many evangelicals, Pentecostals, fundamentalists, and non-denominational Protestants are very conservative and hold many values in common with Catholics, namely prolife issues, homosexuality, marriage, and children.

They are also very conservative when it comes to theology. ALL of the above Protestants accept the Fundamentals of the Faith: Trinity, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Bible is the inerrant Word of God. (Hey, guess what–Catholics accept these doctrines also.)

OTOH, the so-called “mainline” denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, etc.) are very liberal politically and theologically. Just a week ago, my younger daughter was a guest singer in a mainline church that prayed to “Father/Mother God” and celebrated a Gay Pride Sunday.

Some of the mainlines have “confessing movements” in their denominations that are trying to bring their denoms back to the fundamentals.

I honestly don’t think that most evangelicals/Pentecostals/fundamentalists/non-denominationals would practice close friendships with mainliners. It’s just too difficult.

I am a member of a choral union board made up primarily of Lutherans, and I have to watch my every word. Thankfully, most of the Board members are in their 80s, so they are still very conservative theologically and politically. Salt of the earth, I call them.

One of my work associates is a Methodist, and very liberal in all aspects. I have a very difficult time getting along with her. The best approach is to stick with work discussions only and avoid all mention of politics, religions, etc. Just last week I got into a spat with her over abortion. As the Bible says, it truly is like associating with Belial. I was so horrified by the cavalier attitude towards human life that it makes me sick to my stomach. She literally said that if a woman can’t afford to have a baby, she should have the right to kill the baby. And THESE are the people who support Sen. Obama. Shudder.

I realize that these are generalizations and there are always exceptions. But I think that for the most part, my generalizations are true. If there were a lot of evangelical Protestants on CAF, I think they would agree with me.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Reply: WOW ??? Pentecost, Crucifiction ???

Matt. 16:17-18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Peace, onenow1

I don’t understand your comments. And it’s crucifixion, not crucifiction. It happened.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Why a baptist and a methodist?
I mean,shouldn’t this question apply to any church member of any denomination?
I would think that this verse means that if you have a problem that hasn’t been solved. You should try talking to your pastor or priest.
And if the other person is also a church member,then that person will also meet with their pastor. And with the help of a third party maybe the problem will be resolved peacefully.
To answer what the verse means to a non-catholic.
I found this in my bible commentary:
“The church here may mean the whole assembly of believers;
or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases–
the representatives of the church, or those who act for them.
In the Jewish synagogue there was a bench of elders,
before whom trials of this kind were brought.
It was to be brought to the church, in order that he might
be admonished, entreated, and, if possible, reformed.
This was, and is always to be, the first business in disciplining
an offending brother.
The Jews gave the name heathen or Gentile to all other nations
but themselves. With them they had no religious intercourse
or communion.
Publicans were men of abandoned character, and the Jews
would have nothing to do with them. The meaning of this is,
cease to have religious conversation with him, to acknowledge
him as a brother. Regard him as obstinate, self-willed, and guilty.
It does not mean that we should cease to show kindness to him,
and aid him in affliction or trial; for this is required towards all men;
but it means that we should disown him as a Christian brother,
and treat him as we do other men not connected with the church.
This should not be done till all these steps are taken.
This is the only way of kindness. This is the only way to preserve
peace and purity in the church.”
Hope this helps you understand the verse.

I picked Baptist and Methodist randomly.

My point is this, and your response didn’t addres this:

If two believers disagree, Jesus tells them that they have a central authority to refer to.

If there is more than one authority, then this instruction is meaningless.

What if they claim two different authoritative Churches?

 

[Cat]

Now lets talk about the issue of autonomy of churches.

Protestant churches are either autonomous or denominational. Many of the denominations associate with each other in groups; e.g., the National Association of Evangelicals.

And many of the evangelicals/Pentecostals/non-denominationals churches cooperate with each other in various outreaches and prayer meetings (e.g., the National Day of Prayer, a Franklin Graham Crusade, pro-life activities, etc.).

The Fundamentalists–well, it depends. Some are extremely separatist and would not be willing to be in the same room with other Christians. As I mentioned earlier, many of them don’t associate with anyone outside of their churches, so church/church conflict doesn’t arise very often.

But there are also many Fundamentalist churches that DO associate with others! Please don’t get the idea that they are all creepy or something! Many are Fundamental only in their Christian beliefs, but are very friendly with outsiders.

Anyway, back to auto vs. denom–

The Conference Baptists are a denominational church.

If there is conflict between two Conference Baptists from two different Conference Baptist churches, they would go to the denomination (Conference Baptist) to resolve the conflict.

The Evangelical Free Church in America is comprised of autonomous churches, so there is no denomination to appeal to if a conflict should arise between two Christians from different EFree churches. BUT–their pastors are generally friends and would work together to resolve the conflict.

IF there is conflict between two Christians, one a Confernce Baptist and the other an Evangelical Free Church member, they would probably resolve the conflict by going to the other one’s church and asking for mediation. The pastors of these two denominations would probably be happy to work together; in fact, they are probably friends.

It’s a little trickier when you get into conflicts between evangelicals and Pentecostals, or evangelicals and Fundamentalists, or Pentecostals and Fundamentalists. But for the most part, the pastors/elders of these church groups would be willing to work together to resolve conflicts between their members and members of other Christian groups.

Even though there is theological disagreement between various Protestant denominations, they still agree on many issues (the “Fundamentals of the Faith”) and would be willing to work with each other to resolve a conflict between their members.

This isn’t exactly a conflict, but it was a sticky issue. When my husband and I were young and wanted to get married, his family was Assemblies of God (Pentecostal), and mine was Conference Baptist (evangelical). My pastor agreed with the marriage. But my husband’s parents asked us to go to their pastor, too. (They thought he would tell us to wait.) The A of God pastor agreed with the Conference Baptist pastor. So we got married.

So I believe that in the evangelical/Pentecostal/Fundamentalist/non-denominational Protestant traditions, the passage in Matthew would be honored by the pastors/elders of these fellowships getting together with the conflicted individuals/groups and working out the conflict.

I suppose it’s possible that if the pastors of two different Protestant denominations disagreed over the resolution of the conflict, that would be pretty bad. But I honestly think for the most part, Protestants are highly motivated to avoid conflicts between their churches. A conflict can drain a church of members and money, as the church members “take sides” with one or the other persons involved with the conflict. So it is to the advantage of both Protestant pastors to keep the peace with their Protestant neighbors!

The sticky problem is that if the pastors of two Protestant churches cannot reach an agreement in a conflict, neither of them has authority over the conflicting Christians. Each of them could claim authority over their own members, but not over the members of another Protestant church.

And to complicate things even more, many members do not accept the authority of even their own pastor. IF a Protestant Christian believes that the pastor is not teaching “Biblically,” they are free to disregard their pastor’s ruling and teachings. This is one of the reasons Christians leave Protestant churches and either find other churches, or get involved with non-denoms–conflict.

BTW, THIS is one of the reasons that ex-evangelicals like me get so very VERY disturbed when we hear Catholics, especially traditionalists, say that if our priests or bishops are teaching something that appears contrary to the traditional Catholic teachings, that we are under obligation to disobey our priest/bishop. This kind of talk scares evangelicals like me to DEATH, because we have seen what happens when individuals disregard their pastor because they believe he/she is “unBiblical”–the church splits and people are hurt.

To us who are converts to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism, the issue is AUTHORITY-- We want to obey those in authority over us because we KNOW all too well what happens when there is no true authority and people follow their conscience. We’ve seen many instances where someone claims that a pastor is unBiblical, and it just isn’t so, so when we hear a Catholic say that a priest/bishop is teaching something contrary to Catholic Church teaching, we tend to doubt the layman. We know how easy it is for a layman to incorrectly interpret “church teaching” and twist the pastor’s teaching to seem contrary to what the layman wants to believe. We as Catholics should obey our Christ-appointed authorities unless the command is obviously sinful (e.g., “have sex with me.”)

I honestly think that many conflicts between Protestants do get resolved peacefully, even if more than one church/denom is involved.

 

[rbarcia]

In order for this passage to have any meaning, there must be an identifiable Church to appeal to.

I believe this makes an explicit case for a single, hiearchical Church.

Comments?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Mat 18

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’** 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say[c] to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

The context here is when a member of a church sins, and how to handle it. It cannot mean anything about a single institution because I obviously can’t bring the brother who sinned against me to Vatican. This is church discipline for local congregations.**

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I realize that these are generalizations and there are always exceptions. But I think that for the most part, my generalizations are true. If there were a lot of evangelical Protestants on CAF, I think they would agree with me.

In the small town I grew up in, our Methodist Church and the Local Christian Church were great friends. Our youth groups held common events and we were all friends.

I’m sure your experiences are common as well.

However, the point is that Jesus was referring to a single authority.

Clearly, there are millions of personal disputes among believers that belong to different churches.

 

[onenow1]

Quote=O.S.Luke. Pentecost hadn’t even happened yet, nor had Christ’s crucifixion. So I don’t think it was the New Testament Church as we knew it. I’ve never seen any Catholic NT scholar that thought otherwise

= Onenow1 WOW??? Pentecost, Crucifixion, had not happned ???

Peace, onenow1

 

[O.S.Luke]

However, the point is that Jesus was referring to a single authority.

Not according to the verse you asked about, given what the Catholic bishop’s commentary says.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Quote=O.S.Luke. Pentecost hadn’t even happened yet, nor had Christ’s crucifixion. So I don’t think it was the New Testament Church as we knew it. I’ve never seen any Catholic NT scholar that thought otherwise

= Onenow1 WOW??? Pentecost, Crucifixion, had not happned ???

Peace, onenow1

I would assume not in this scriptural verse cited, since Jesus is the one who is speaking! I don’t think Matthew 18 is a post-resurrection instance.

Am I mistaken?

 

[onenow1]

I would assume not in this scriptural verse cited, since Jesus is the one who is speaking! I don’t think Matthew 18 is a post-resurrection instance.

Am I mistaken?

Quote= onenow1, So Matt was preaching to christians about Jesus, before the Gospel was written ?

Peace, onenow1