With all due respect, I don't find your exegesis compelling. I can't be concerned with the effect that my beliefs have on you, because I'm telling you what I truly believe.
So where do we go from here?
I have a Bible. You have a Bible. And you are accusing me of trying to deceive you. I believe that you have sinned against me.
What should we do now?
What does the Bible say?
What does Jesus say?
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
That was already dealt with yesterday here , but ignored and now you post the same parroted polemic.
In short, as said, this text
actually applies to matters of personal wrongs, yet there is nothing new here, as the same principle is set down in the OT, and despite the strawman of your parroted polemic it is often used), under the premise of the supremacy and sufficiency (formal and material aspects) of Scripture magisterial authority is upheld. Westminster itself affirmed,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
A infallible authority was never provided or promised to deal this issue in the OT or under the New, while in principle it is to be dealt with today in the church beginning at the local level, and in which Paul instructs,
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. (1 Corinthians 6:4)
While a centralized magisterium to deal with disciplinary or doctrinal matters that cannot be resolved at the local level is the ideal, yet Scripturally the authority and veracity of this was based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of assured papal and conciliar infallibility, which is what Rome presumes in "infallibly" decreeing that she is infallible.
And rather than "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God," (2 Corinthians 6:4) which apostolic credentials those who want to claim they are such apostles must have, the history of Rome has been much the contrary, with popes even by the 4th century ( supporters of the rival of Damascus 1 being slain) employing the sword of men to attain spiritual ends, while teaching many things noble Bereans would never find in Scripture.
Thus rather than being the solution to division, Rome has compelled it due to her unScriptural basis for the determination and assurance of Truth - that being the premise of her assured veracity - and the many things she teaches that are not manifestly taught in Scripture, as well as are contrary to it.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
And it is the remnant who have found God as their Father - not a "priest" pastor which the NT church knew nothing of - that realize the essential "unity of the Spirit," manifest in both spontaneous fellowship and in ministries, which transcends the external divisions, thus both Rome and liberals count them as their greatest threats, though this remnant itself must be much more practically sanctified.
Scripture is dealing with real sin. Not imagined sin.
I've seen others take offense at stuff and then consider that they've been wronged, when no wrong was done but rather they are just easily offended.
It smacks of manipulation and control issues in the life of the person claiming to be offended.
What should we do now?
Try to not be so easily offended?
What does the Bible say?
Read the Beatitudes in Matthew 5-7 and consider a godly response instead of being offended.
What does Jesus say?
Don't think more highly of yourself than you ought? What was Jesus' response when people wronged Him? Did HE demand they apologize?
If someone *apologies* because they're forced to, then it's meaningless.
If Elsie wronged you, it behooves you to go to him and tell him so and WHAT HE DID that was wrong. Then the ball is in his court to take the appropriate action. The only thing that can be compelled is outward action, but that does not mean an inward heart change.
That's what I see as being a great flaw in Catholicism. It is great at compelling outward behavior under thread of duress and eternal damnation without effecting an inward heart change than is necessary for true salvation.
People then fall into the trap of works based salvation without being born again into God's family.
I can't be concerned with the effect that my beliefs have on you, because I'm telling you what I truly believe.
What you 'believe'; apparently; is that you can use a SPECIFIC instance of 'listening to the church' and apply it across the board.
This is typical Catholic teaching: find one thing and then make the claim it applies to anything it wishes.