[Stephen Colbert's wikipedia bio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert#Personal_life) states: > **Colbert is a practicing Roman Catholic** and a Sunday school teacher **and an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church Monastery**. These two (bolded) things, according to various media reports and the blogsite of the Universal Life Church Monastery are factually correct, so I'm not asking if they are possible, but whether according to official Catholic doctrine the two are reconcileable? By way of background information: > The Universal Life Church Monastery (ULC) is a non-denominational, non-profit religious organization famous worldwide for its provision of free, legal ordinations to its vast membership over the internet. The ULC, recognizing the importance of maintaining open hearts and minds, embraces any individual, no matter his or her spiritual background, who wishes to become a member of this family of faith. Since its founding, the Universal Life Church has ordained more than 20 million ministers. - [www.themonastery.org/aboutUs](http://www.themonastery.org/aboutUs) The Picture is of Colbert officiating at the wedding of Mike Cassesso and MaiLien Le using a licence granted to him in the state of New York on the basis of his ULC credential. Clearly Colbert was not officiating as a priest in the Catholic sacrament of marriage, but do his actions in conducting a non-Catholic wedding violate any particular Church teachings? If so, would it be regarded as a venial sin or a mortal one?

I have often heard it said that believers need to be members of a local church in order to be ‘accountable’. I am assuming all believers understand that they should regularly fellowship with a local church. My question is not about that. My question is from the scripture in what sense might this accountability mean? I am not sure the word accountable is actually used in the New Testament except that the whole world is accountable to God by the Law but I take it to mean in certain situations some form of answerable agreement of conduct, or something along that line is implied by various bible verses which make people chose the word ‘accountable’ as though people were accountants making some kind of record or enforcement of some basic standard. What does it actually mean? What are its limits? What sense does the scripture support or limit such a concept?

Last summer I was traveling and I stopped for mass in another state. Throughout mass I was rather uncomfortable due the celebrant's demeanor/conduct, but I brushed it off as "just a bad case of progressivism." After mass I asked him to hear my confession, so we went to the confessional and began the standard process. Without disclosing the exact sins that were confessed, I will clarify a few things: 1. Every sin I confessed has been officially recognized as sin by the Catholic church since her beginning (and before that, by Judaism). 2. Some sins caused direct injury (without being specific, either spiritual, emotional, or physical) to another person. 3. I have confirmed with numerous other clergy that the things confessed were indeed sinful. Throughout my confession, the priest interrupted me many times to say, "so what?" or, "that's not a sin." I expressed the desire to help those affected by my sins come to healing, and the advice was, "Tell them to get over it!" *I spent more time arguing that my sins are indeed sins than I did giving my confession*. In complete honesty, it felt like I was speaking to an atheist clown at a circus and he was mocking me for my moral consciousness. I know with certainty the priest was wrong in this scenario, and I am afraid that he will lead others astray from salvation and into sin. However, I do not know how to make sure the matter is addressed appropriately and sufficiently resolved. I believe the best course of action is to report this to the diocese, but at the same time I am afraid that my experience was just a symptom of the diocese's own potential corruption (specifically, the administration). Also, I do not know *how* to submit such a report. How should I go about resolving this?

The term discipline conjures up a huge range of actions in most people's minds. A parent disciplining a child could mean time-outs in the corner or a swat on the rear, not getting to hang out with friends, or any number of other things. Introducing the modifier 'church' probably doesn't do much to clarify. I can imagine the range of things brought to mind by the term _church discipline_ could range from being made to wear a dunce cap during service to 40 lashes. I have asked about the purpose and Scriptural basis of discipline, but what is an overview of how it is implemented? Is there a common definition for what consequences make up the 'discipline'? What is an overview of methods employed by different traditions?

In the news recently is a discussion in the Roman Catholic Church about not giving Holy Communion to certain politicians who argue that 3rd trimester infants in utero are not to be acknowledged as having a human right to life comparable to adults. For those who are not Catholics, or are moderate Catholics, how should church discipline be practiced among the laity outside of Eucharistic bans? For example, during the Hitler era, most of the Lutherans in Germany did not refuse communion to those who belonged to the Nazi party. But were there other restrictions related to lay ecclesiastical service or church member identification?

Is this practice supported by the Christian bible ? Please argument your response with biblical support. We have this practice in our Pentecostal church and no matter from which angle I view it, I cannot personally accept it as being a right thing to do. -- Update It's the situation when a a member sins (minor to major) against others or himself and it's separated (not removed completely) from the church for a specific period of time (in months). During this time, he must repent and finally get back after the end of period. However, church leaders and members are supposed to see the results of his repentance otherwise it will get difficult. For example: If you serve in the church and commit a visible sin, you are separated/put away and at some extent cannot serve anymore depending on the gravity of the sin, even after the end of period. Regards

In *Church History in Plain Language*, Bruce Shelley points out a key distinction between Western and Eastern Christianity: how each has related to the State through history. > Ambrose had hit upon the weapon—the threat of excommunication—which the Western church would soon use again and again to humble princes. But at the center of the Christian empire, in Constantinople, no bishop ever stepped so far out of line. ((https://books.google.com/books?id=RbfVAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA104)) Specific examples will hopefully make the distinction clear. First, in the East, when the emperor [Leo III](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_III_the_Isaurian) forbade the veneration of icons, the [Patriarch of Constantinople](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanus_I_of_Constantinople) resigned: > Leo secured the retirement of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the consecration of a new one who favored his own views. ((https://books.google.com/books?id=RbfVAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA157)) But in the West, the bishops fought back. Ambrose excommunicated [Theodosius I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I) over a massacre he ordered, while Pope Innocent III was especially prolific in applying excommunication and the [interdict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdict) (prohibition of rites throughout a geographic area): > The pope's first weapon in bringing peasants and princes to their knees was the threat of excommunication. [...] Pope Innocent III successfully applied or threatened the interdict eighty-five times against uncooperative princes. ((https://books.google.com/books?id=RbfVAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA194)) This is surely a huge topic, so let me specify: **What is an *overview* of the *theological* differences that led to distinct approaches to unwanted State innovation and overreach in the West and East?** That is: - I'm specifically interested in the use, threats to use, and lack of use of excommunication, the interdict, and similar methods of ecclesiastical discipline, against heads of state and/or their territories. - I'm not interested in historical reasons for the difference. If historical reasons fully explain it (which I highly doubt), then an expansion on "there were no theological differences" would be a good answer. - I'm basically talking about the Middle Ages here: from Ambrose to the fall of the [Byzantine Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) in 1453. Earlier writers probably had an influence, so discussion of them is fine, but I'm not interested in following this into the Modern era. - I'm speculating that Eastern Christians reacted in writing to the excommunications performed by Ambrose and Innocent (and others), while Western Christians reacted in writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople's resignation. If so, their criticisms might shed light on the subject. - I'm interested in an **overview**: a few key points, with a few (sourced) sentences each, would be sufficiently lengthy.

In Matthew 16 we see Jesus conferring the keys of the kingdom: > 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.” - Matthew 16:19 The 'binding and loosing' authority appears, in the context, to be the applicational power of the keys rather than a second gifting. In other words, Jesus doesn't appear to be gifting two separate things but rather one thing 'keys' with 'binding and loosing' authority. This same binding and loosing authority is spoken of again by Jesus in Matthew 18: > Truly, 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. - Matthew 18:18 In this instance the binding and loosing power is spoken of as regarding the entire church in general and those individuals involved in the restoration of a sinful brother in specific. As near as I can tell the description of the binding and loosing powers in the two passages are identical. My question is twofold and is for those who hold to Church governance by apostolic succession: 1) Are the binding and loosing powers conferred with possession of the keys or are the two distinct? 2) If the former, then must we not conclude that, at least as regarding discipline within the Church, we all possess the 'keys' since we all (at least corporately if not individually) possess the 'binding and loosing' authority?

**Question:** What are the theological (not practical) reasons for Catholic priests being celibate? In other words, is celibacy (or at least perpetual continence) essential to the Catholic priesthood? Note that I am not seeking for practical reasons like "If priests were not celibate they would have a harder time keeping a secret known trough confessions," etc. I am seeking for theological reasons (if they exist) that make celibacy fitting from the very notion of priesthood or something like that.

Jehovah's Witnesses shun people who fall foul of scriptural law, >Jehovah’s Witness kids grow up knowing that if they ever mess up, their parents will leave them — and that’s scary (quote from person interviewed in link above) and looking at what I believe are scriptural reasons for shunning, they seem to be from the following - **Proverbs 4:15** >Shun it, do not take it;Turn away from it, and pass it by. (NWT) - **Job 2:3** >And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad. He is still holding firmly to his integrity, even though you try to incite me against him to destroy him for no reason.” (NWT)

(Job said "It is unthinkable for me to declare you men righteous! Until I die, I will not renounce my integrity!" - Job 27:5 - NWT) but how can Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile shunning in the manner prescribed by the organisation with Matthew 7:1 >“Stop judging that you may not be judged; (NWT)
>Do not judge, or you too will be judge (NIV) Romans 12:17-19 >17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men.
18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men.
19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” (NWT) and >You must love your neighbor as yourself. - Matthew 22:39-40, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14 & James 2:8 Plus, should you not be trying to stear them back to the correct way?

I think the title says it all. Are there rules/guidelines for Church Discipline for members of the Church that are blatantly involved in adultery? Specifically, I'm referring to well-known, unabashed involvement, not a one-time or short-term slip up. Understanding that we are all human and all able to fall into temptation, I am not referring to a situation where a person falls into sin, and then repents. I'm talking about openly unashamed sinful behavior. For example, a member becomes involved with a married man, becomes pregnant with his child, then works actively to break up the marriage, with no sign of a repentant spirit. Without focusing on what we think ought to happen, I'm looking for a defined policy or set of guidelines, similar to the Catholic guidelines , or those found in other denominations?

To be more clear, how can the person be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ by delivering such person (sexual immoral) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh? > **[1 Corinthians 5:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5&version=NKJV)** (NKJV) > 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

A [2002 survey of nearly 2000 Church of England clergy](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1403106/One-third-of-clergy-do-not-believe-in-the-Resurrection.html) uncovered some worrying statistics: - a third doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection - only half were convinced of the truth of the virgin birth - more than 75 percent believe in the Trinity, with the very troublesome implication that 20 percent didn't in some way Was there an official response to this survey or others like it, either to refute the numbers, or to initiate measures that might improve the proportion of clergy who can uphold the church's official doctrines with enthusiastic integrity? (PS: If anyone could find the official survey report that would be helpful - I can only find news reports, and [some blogs](https://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2013/10/24/is-the-church-of-england-full-of-non-believing-clergy/) who question how the survey's results are being reported.)

I have a question relating to Matthew 18:18. I want to specifically ask the Seventh-day Adventist church about this. It says: > "I can assure you that when you speak judgment here on earth, it will > be God's judgment. And when you promise forgiveness here on earth, it > will be God's forgiveness." Matthew 18:18 ERV Does this verse apply only to the twelve apostles that Jesus spoke at that time, or does it also apply to all pastors and ministers, that they can forgive sin, and/or does it also apply to churches today that whoever they "loose" from their churches would be "loosed" from heaven? So if a church today (let's suppose it's the one true church) excommunicate a member does that mean that that person is excommunicated in heaven? Does Seventh-day Adventism vary from mainstream Christianity on this topic?

>**Matthew 18:15-18 (DRB)** But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. According to the understanding of ecclesiology among those Protestants who don't admit of any kind of 'Magisterium' with excommunicatory power or authority over a persons's belonging in the Body, *how does 'two or three witnesses' from the church in fact differ* from 'the church?'

According to official policy, what happens to members of the LDS church who do not pay their tithing? Specifically, what happens to those who: 1. Forget to pay tithing for an extended period of time, or 2. Openly refuse to pay tithing. Background: I am a Mormon, and I frequently see people online saying that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are forced to pay tithing by various enforcement methods. I would like there to be a canonical answer on this site to point people towards. I will offer my anecdotal experiences in the comments.

In Paul's letter to Timothy, Paul mentions that Alexander and Hymenaeus were handed over to Satan to 'be taught not to blaspheme'. What is an overview on how churches have interpreted handing people over to Satan? **1 Timothy 1:18-20:** > 18 Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

When a disfellowshipped person takes the steps necessary to be accepted back into the Jehovah's Witness faith an announcement is made to the congregation informing all of the reinstatement of this person into the fold. How is such an announcement worded and how is the congregation supposed to react to the news?

1 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV) > **5** hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. Here we have Paul referring to a man that was sleeping with 'his father's wife'. It seems from the way the phrase reads that Paul would see this man's flesh destroyed, if not directly by the members of the Corinthian church then indirectly, through the agency of Satan. What is the meaning of the phrase 'destruction of the flesh'? If Paul is advocating killing him then what are the ramifications?

Did the early church record other events of handing people over to Satan? > So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. ([1 Corinthians 5:4–5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+5%3A4%E2%80%935&version=NIV) , NIV) > > Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. ([1 Timothy 1:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+1%3A20&version=NIV) , NIV)