Excommunication and Salvation?

I don't understand the root of your question.

__________________
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

Unrepentant presumably eventually excommunicated members of the Catholic Church rejected and condemned the Catholic Church and formed new sects of believers.

The Protestant reformation and all that jazz.

Was the grace of God on these men as they created schism in the body of Christ.

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

But did God give these men the authority to grant (or not) absolution through the office of Peter who holding the "keys to the kingdom" has passed them down through the doctrine of papal succession?

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

Still, only through the true Church founded by Christ, were these fathers of the Protestant churches ever shown the Grace of God. They may have had free will and willingly turned their back on the Church, but they still were Baptized by Desire (I think that is the term) and had faith in God, Jesus Christ and His salvation.

At this point, I think you may have been trolling and wanting to 'show' that the Catholic Church is 'wrong'. If you sincerely have questions about the beliefs and Dogma of the Catholic Church, I will try to answer your questions.

__________________
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

Not trolling. I am an Agnostic so I do not have a brand in the fire so to speak.

Come from a very conservative Anabaptist tradition but was never baptised myself.

Had to develop a pretty thick skin and some would say "wicked" familiarity with the Bible to defend my position under tremendous presure to conform to the traditions of my folks.

So fortunately/ unfortunately? my interpretation of the Bible was never moulded into any set doctrine.

So again respectfully , in the Catholic tradition is the penitent absolved before or after the priest recites these words.

"I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

It's not real complicated. You ask God for forgiveness, you are forgiven.

__________________
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

Before or after the priest says.

"I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Not picking on you. The Lutherans are next.

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

I've already answered this question when I told you that a priest is not necessary to absolve sins, only God can absolve sins. That you continue to ask the same question, just differently worded, just shows that you are, in fact, trolling -- as your 'Lutherans are next' comment shows.

When you have honest questions about my or any other Christian's faith, and not just trolling, feel free to PM me or other Christians on this board.

__________________
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

You sound offended. Why? The Catechism clearly states that the authority to forgive sins has been placed in the Catholic priesthood.

No biggie to me.

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

Maybe she's offended because you do appear to be trolling.

There is a difference between being absolved of sin and being forgiven for sin.

This is like pulling teeth. Is there a difference between the two? If the concept is common to the faith why beat around the bush?

Call out to cloth on this one. Any persons in the priesthood.

If a priest forgives a member under his authority "in the person of Christ" are they forgiven? If they in their judgement deem that sin to be retained is it retained?

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

In answer to the OP's question, I think that excommunication means nothing to the higher spirit. It's simply foolish man's folderol.

__________________
Alice
* * *
"No great thing is created suddenly." ~Epictitus

No


Yes
What is the rest of the chapter (preceding these verses) concerned with?






This vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Alright. Here is how it works in my tradition. A person gets a free pass until some point were they are deemed to have reached the age of accountability.

At that point baptism is considered necessary in order for salvation.

After some study and various efforts to confess sins to the leadership of the church the initiate must then make amends to any persons who they believe they have wronged.

After this they are splashed with water while the Elder repeats I baptise you in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost (in German). I forgot to mention that for several weeks preceding the initiate is asked questions from the Catechism to which he gives the correct answer Hopefully.

The older generations were expected to know the answers from memory but lately it seems that reading from the book is allowed.

After this the initiate is considered a full member and is presented to the congregation.

A week later he gets married. Just kidding but often so as only members are allowed to be married in the church.

Excommunication is considered a big deal as it is accompanied by shunning by friends and family to one extreme or another.

In our tradition a person who is under the utschluss is definitely considered to be in precarious position as far as their salvation is concerned.

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

Jesus was not a member of the church - ANY Christian church. Take it from there.

__________________
George Washington did not run and hide.

Good thing the thief on the cross didn't know about all that stuff..........and the guy next to him.

How would you interpret this text?


Matthew 16:17-19

New International Version (NIV)



17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”

__________________
Some folks are well off. I'm just a little off.

Foundation was translated into the word church. He was saying that Peter would be the founder, the one to establish the foundation of an institution and to maintain it. Jesus would be the basis on which the institution was founded. Peter would establish Christianity, not Jesus.

Foundation definition:

- The act of founding, especially the establishment of an institution with provisions for future maintenance.

- The basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported.

.

Postroad,
Technically, Chickpea is right. If you just want to discuss those 2 or 3 verses, Jesus was "calling out" (in the Greek) Peter to start and be head of the "gathering or congregation of" his earthly flock. He was leaving Peter in charge of leading them. The word "church" used here is an informal gathering primarily Jewish. Synagogue could also be used here.
I always find it amusing when people start right at that moment and go from Jewish synagogue on Saturdays immediately to Christian church services on Sundays as if it really happened like that. Jesus pulled out a pope hat for Peter, passed out some red bishop hats for the apostles, took down the Hebrew symbols, put a cross on the building, whipped out the New Testament and said meet back here next Sunday.
Nobody actually says that or really believes it, but I sometimes wonder what they do think when I hear off the cuff comments about Christian/Jewish traditions and customs.
I see you have questions from time to time and are still searching. That's good. If you didn't care at all you wouldn't even ask. But just like before, rather than zero in on a couple of verses and try and pick it apart, go back and read the whole chapter. Usually if you get to a crucial part, backing up and reading the context will open up the meaning to you. That is, if you rely on the Holy Spirit, rather than men to guide you.
What was Jesus talking about right before He addressed Peter?
What had He just cautioned the disciples about right before He brought up the founding of this new "church"?
Those verses are more important and directly related to what you are asking about.

It would appear to me the "Rock", was the fact God revealed/spoke to Peter, not flesh and blood. Seems funny a play on words would be used here...Peter IE. Simon Bar Jonah translates to mean rock.