Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[Michelle]

Dear Popeman,

I'm confused. Steve said, "Yes. Absolutely." Why are you accusing him of not answering, not being able to answer, and ignoring scripture?

Yours,
Michelle

[popeman]

Hey, please accept my huge apology. I took a quick look at my post as it went up and I see that I missed your first line (it was kind of hidden as I immediately saw your Pope question)....you do belong to a Church that has authority to turn a fellow Christian into a pagan/tax collector (ie, "excommunicated" via the NIV scholars).

By everyone’s silence, Tom and I can assume that you also believe that this Church of yours has earthly authority (because it would be fellow earth-bound Christians making such decisions). If not, please speak up. Homer appears to deny any earthy authority because he denies a Christian Pope (earth bound man) to make a decision affecting a fellow Christian(s). So Homer, you do believe in Steve’s position and believe in a Church authority, right? I think I was wrong about Homer. I think he does believe in a earth-bound Church with mandating authority over fellow Christians.

I will answer your Pope question indirectly vis-à-vis your agreement with your present-day Church’s MATT18 authority. Your Church authorities ability to cast out (NIV excommunicate) a fellow Christian as a pagan (no longer a Christian) is tantamount to losing one’s ability for salvation. Therefore, such an authoritative body with such mandating life/death-changing implications would need to be infallible, right? You would not want a Church authority to have fallible reasoning abilities when it comes to a person’s salvation, would you? So your Church actually has authoritative members with infallible reasoning abilities in matters of faith and morals.

Praise be to God, Homer is not a Catholic Christian but he (like Steve) does appear to kneel to God and an earth-bound Church authority that works in & through Jesus Christ, our mutual Lord & Savior. You see Karen, even these non-Catholic, non-LDS Christians have a Church authority. I was wrong about them….now we’re getting somewhere! Yipeee. Popeman

[popeman]

Dear Michelle,

I caught my over-sight just as I posted and you quickly caught it too. Sorry. Michelle, are you of the same Christian-mold as Steve, Homer and Mike who believe in a Church authority with the mandating power of Matt18? Peace Popeman

[Michelle]

Hi Popeman,

Yes, I am a Christian, therefore I am part of Christ's Church with a mandate to uphold all scripture, including Matthew 18.

Blessings,
Michelle

[Allyn]

I'm not sure if I am properly addressing this subject concerning Matthew 18, but it seems to me that this discussion is taking liberties not properly applicable to who Jesus was talking about. Why is it assumed by the Catholic Church, for example, that the literal word "assembly" is referring to the larger church of the world and not what it, in its proper context, was meant to be applied to? There are many examples of the same Greek word throughout Scripture with its conotation to be applied to what we would know of as a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs. In the Sept. it is used to designate the gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a gathering regarded as representative of the whole nation. While in Acts 7:38 it is used of Israel; In 19:32, 41, of a riotous mob. It also has applications to companies of Christians (a) the whole redeemed throughout the present era, the same Christ said, "I will build my Church" and (b) in the singular number as in congregation coming from Matthew 18.

My real point is what did Jesus mean by it? He was sent to the Jews in order to build His Church, so was this a Jewish duty or right under the New Covenant or did Jesus have in mind just the way it is being discussed in this thread?

Maybe it cannot be seperated out as easy as that. So is it possible that the Catholic Church, for example, has overstepped the boundary apart from what Jesus Himself really meant for its application?

[christopher]

Popeman, I'm also very interested in hearing the answer to Homer's questions if it's not too much trouble. This a matter of curiosity to me, not trying to corner you or anything.

But how does one go about bringing matters of sin to the church in the RCC? And if one is excommunicated, what prevents them from simply moving on to another parish where nobody knows them (that's seems how it is in non-catholic circles). Is there some sort of master member list system in the RCC where someone could be blacklisted?

I'm very curious how this whole thing works (practically speaking) in your organization.

[mdh]

With respect to the meaning here of the term translated "Church" (ekklēsia), I suspect in this instance He is referring to the assembly of Christ-followers (called out ones). He speaks of people gathered together in His name (v20), and in the parable immediately following this passage He refers to "servants" of the King.

I would think all of us would agree that the authority granted here to bind and loose comes from Christ, right? And that Christ, in granting this authority, did not give up the authority. In other words, the authority is granted to those who act on behalf of Christ (ie: gather in His name). Final authority belongs to Christ. Agents of His who cease to act on His behalf will lose this authority, and suffer the consequences (read 18: 21-35).

I do not believe Christ is giving us authority to determine whether people can ultimately be saved or not. And I do not think we can count on those who have this authority as being infallible (I have never met such a person, anyway). Hence the strong warning on the parable to be merciful, and to forgive from the heart if we do not want to be severely punished.

Blessings,
Mike

[Allyn]

With respect to the meaning here of the term translated "Church" (ekklēsia), I suspect in this instance He is referring to the assembly of Christ-followers (called out ones). He speaks of people gathered together in His name (v20), and in the parable immediately following this passage He refers to "servants" of the King.

I would think all of us would agree that the authority granted here to bind and loose comes from Christ, right? And that Christ, in granting this authority, did not give up the authority. In other words, the authority is granted to those who act on behalf of Christ (ie: gather in His name). Final authority belongs to Christ. Agents of His who cease to act on His behalf will lose this authority, and suffer the consequences (read 18: 21-35).

I do not believe Christ is giving us authority to determine whether people can ultimately be saved or not. And I do not think we can count on those who have this authority as being infallible (I have never met such a person, anyway). Hence the strong warning on the parable to be merciful, and to forgive from the heart if we do not want to be severely punished.

Blessings,
Mike

This would be my take on it as well. To be treated as a heathen is not the same as being a heathen. To me it just has to go along with Paul's teaching on how to let satan do his part so that a brother may be restored.

[steve]

Popeman, you asked for clarification on the following point:

Your Church authorities ability to cast out (NIV excommunicate) a fellow Christian as a pagan (no longer a Christian) is tantamount to losing one’s ability for salvation. Therefore, such an authoritative body with such mandating life/death-changing implications would need to be infallible, right? You would not want a Church authority to have fallible reasoning abilities when it comes to a person’s salvation, would you? So your Church actually has authoritative members with infallible reasoning abilities in matters of faith and morals.

I agree with Mike, Allyn, and others posting above. I think your concern has been answered, but I do not know if you will recognize that it has been answered, because we are assuming a certain paradigm that you have apparently never considered, and which you do not connect to the statements that are being made.

First, many of your comments have suggested that the actions of "the Church" must be performed by some group of "Church authorities." Your perception is so different that I may not be able adequately to clarify this point. In my view (and, so far as I know, in that of some of these others who are engaged in this discussion), the "Church" is not defined by a group of "authorities," but by the one authority of its Head, Jesus Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and earth has been given.

That it is the Church itself, and not a group of leaders, that must perform the discipline, is made clear by Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20. Once He has introduced the word Church, as the final stage of confronting the unrepentant sinner, Jesus clarifies that the body He is envisaging is not the worldwide Church, but an individual assembly, which may be comprised of as few as two (or many more) people acting in the name of the King (Matthew 18:19-20). The action of the "Church" is the action of an assembly—not of a group of authorities.

We see this process in action in 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul is advocating the carrying out of this principle on an incestuous individual in the Corinthian church. Paul does not make any reference to the actions of any local church officials. He says, "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit..." (v.4). The disciplinary action is the action of the whole gathered assembly, acting in Christ's name—and with the endorsement of Paul's "spirit."

The action of one church in such a case may be (and should be) honored by any other assemblies wherein the discharged man may seek to find fellowship in his state of unrepentance—because Paul assumed all the Christians in Corinth were part of a single congregation (see 14:23), and, therefore, expected all the local Christians to stand in agreement on the action. The decision to excommunicate is not made by some ecclesiastical tribunal declaring that the man is unsaved—it is the united decision of all the believers to not accept this man in their fellowship until he repents. In fact, the action is taken for the very purpose of eliciting such repentance—"that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (5:5).

Your assumption that this procedure relegates the man to an unsaved condition is not stated, nor clearly implied, by Jesus' statements in Matthew 18. To treat one "as if he were a tax collector or a heathen," is describing the behavior of the Christians toward the man. It is not saying that the man necessarily has become a tax collector, nor a heathen. He may, in fact, be a heathen, but nothing in Jesus' instructions commits to that conclusion.

What Jesus is describing is what Catholics (and some others) have called "excommunication." Since Catholics believe that one must participate in the sacrament in order to be saved, and excommunication deprives a man of the sacrament, it is easy to see why you would equate this action with consigning a man to hell. However, the context of the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 18, is that Christians must seek a resolution of interpersonal conflicts that results in forgiveness (read the rest of chapter 18, and you will see that this is the theme).

Excommunication, a procedure that some of us prefer to call "disfellowshipping," functions, as all "church" actions should, as a part of the relational dynamics of the Christian fellowship. That is, it deals with relationship problems between individuals (Matt.18:15). I told you in an earlier post that, whereas your view of the church is institutional, the biblical view of the church is relational. The Church of Jesus Christ is a family, defined by its relationships—not an organization defined by its rituals and authorities (which is why true discipleship is proven by love for one another, not conformity to the norms of a religious system).

Of course, I think we all recognize that there are leaders ( "authorities" of a sort) that Jesus provides for the Church's safety and nurture (e.g., the apostles and others). But they don't exist in order to define a hierarchical, political structure of an organization. They are like the older brothers in a family (Matt.23:8), who have been sent among us by the Father to help watch over and assist the younger siblings in their struggles. Their function is one of service to the family (Matt.20:25-28), not domination of an organization. Such leaders do not need to have an appointed position. The family members are to recognize them by their godly maturity and their servant's hearts (1 Cor.16:15). They do not pull any rank, nor wear a uniform to be saluted, but are strictly honored for the sake of their labors (1 Thess.5:12-13*/ 1 Tim.5:17*).

Thus, "excommunication" is not the consignment of one man to hell by a council of religious rulers. It is a disciplinary action, performed by the whole family, resulting in the exclusion from normal fellowship one whose behavior is obstinately contrary to the Father's standards. The idea is not to condemn, but to restore the erring brother (see 2 Thess.3:14-15). His soul is indeed in great danger, but the actions of the family are a reflection of their commitment "that his spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus."

Popeman, I don't expect for you to understand this (as I said in my last post to you, it pertains to a different world from that which you occupy, and you apparently have no proper frame of reference from which to make sense of it). Actually, most Protestants probably do not understand it this way either. Biblical teaching on these subjects has long been eclipsed by traditional ecclesiology. It is a shame that it is not better understood by the participants, but this ignorance does not eliminate the reality of the family of God, nor the obligation to do what Jesus said in our relationships. It will be a better day for the Church, I believe, when all Christians together comprehend these realities as they are (see Eph.3:17-21 and 4:13-16).

As for the modern-day application of Matthew 18, this can be practiced (upon me, for instance, if I remain unrepentant of some sin of which I am guilty) without the need for any popes or religious hierarchy—since it involves the imposition of a change in relationships, not in religious beliefs. If I have sinned, the offended party should confront me about it (Matt.18:15 and Luke 17:3-4). Upon my repentance (for I would certainly repent) my brother is to forgive me, and that is the end of it. All is well.

However, if I am confronted, and I am convinced that my actions were not truly sinful, then my brother and I have an ongoing issue. I can't repent of what I do not believe to be sinful. I may need to be convinced. That is when my brother must involve "one or two more" (Matt.18:16) in our conflict. It is in order to establish, by the agreement of two or more witnesses, that an actual sin has been committed, and that there is something for me to repent about. If all of these brothers see the matter the way my offended brother sees it, then I must defer to their consensus, and repent of my actions. I am then forgiven, relationships are restored, and all is well.

On the other hand, if I am obstinate, and insist that I am right and in no need of repentance, or if, in acknowledging that I have in fact sinned, I refuse to repent, then the offended brother must involve more than the earlier "one or two" in the conflict. The gathered assembly must confront me, and if I will not repent even then, they should shun me, until such a time as I may repent (or, perhaps, until such a time as the group decides their judgment was mistaken, which is less likely—though it happened when the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo).

Having come under this discipline, I really should not be permitted to fellowship—even to eat—with anyone in any group that considers itself to be a gathering of Christ's Body, until I have repented.

In our day, there is a complication that was not faced by the early Church. There are many church "organizations" that do not recognize their unity with others, and who do not honor the disciplinary actions of another group. This allows the erring brother, often, to find a fellowship elsewhere, even while unrepentant (Homer and Christopher have asked if the situation is any different in your church—it is not a challenge. We are only curious). When this occurs, it is advisable that the assembly that has taken the action should communicate with the group where the man now finds fellowship. If this second group ignores this communication, or defies it, it may be necessary for the first assembly to take disciplinary action against the second (...or not, it depends of various factors). If so, this simply means that the second group and its participants will similarly be avoided by members of the first group until there is repentance. The mentality of modern Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) might make such a step unfruitful, and the first assembly may simply need to avoid the disciplined man themselves, leaving the actions of other groups for God to deal with—to their own Master they stand or fall.

There is an alternative situation to consider. The group taking the original step of disciplining may itself be acting unjustly—it may even be a cult—and the disciplined man may be, in fact, innocent of any sin in the matter! It is not unheard of for such groups to carry-out discipline for reasons that are not legitimately actionable. For example, when a man has actually not committed any sin against another brother, but has merely formed an opinion contrary to the dominant viewpoint of the group. This man may eventually find himself thrown out of the group that dislikes his views. In such a case, there has been a miscarriage of justice by the group, and other assemblies would have no obligation to honor the sinful decision of the cult. That is, the man may legitimately find fellowship with real Christians, without having first to repent of the views that got him kicked out of the totalitarian group. This is why Protestants feel no obligation to recognize the Catholic Church's excommunication of Peter Waldo, Jan Hus, Martin Luther, and others.

The issue is the maintenance of godly behavior and relationships in the family of God. That is what Jesus and Paul spoke about, when they taught how one must behave in the house of God (1 Tim.3:15). Until we hear otherwise, about how this is done in your organization, we have no reason to believe that the process works less admirably among us than it works in the Catholic Church.

------------------------------------
* The verb proistemi, in some translations rendered as "over you," in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, and "rule," in 1 Tim.5:17, means, literally, to "stand before" or "preside." It does not suggest anything like political overlordship.

[Homer]

Well, we got home from the assembly , had lunch and I read Popeman's reply. As I read it I was thinking of what to write in reply but upon further reading of other's replies I discovered all I intended to say and more too. So I am saved a lot of typing, for which I am grateful, as I am a rather slow typist.

So now I too am anxiously waiting to hear a response from the Roman Catholic side to my questions, some of which involve certain facts. If there is no reply, I must assume the reason is that you have no answers, facts being the stubborn things they are.

May God bless you on this Lord's day.