Taken out of context, again.
The context is settling disputes between believers, not giving absolute blanket authority to any one church or organization to dictate doctrine and salvation, giving it the alleged power to bind a person’s sins to them and send them to hell and to be used as a bludgeon to demand submission to it.
It’s one of the signs of a cult.
I believe that you misinterpret the statement, even in context, as I'll explain, again.
The context is settling disputes between believers, not giving absolute blanket authority to any one church or organization to dictate doctrine and salvation,
The latter follows with logical necessity from the former.
"Tell it to the church."
1) This church must be visible. An invisible church can't settle disciplinary disputes.
2) Jesus founded a church, so he must be speaking of His visible church.
3) Churches are distinguished by doctrine and practice. Church discipline regards violations of either.
To settle disputes regarding doctrine and practice, the church must possess a unified body of doctrine and practice, otherwise, it would be impossible to resolve disputes.
One could indefinitely appeal to any body of self-described Christians, teaching various conflicting doctrines. (See Protestantism).
4) Jesus and His Church existed contemporaneously. He could have said, "take it to Me." But he said, "tell it to the church." He gave His Church His disciplinary authority.
This is corroborated by the passages regarding Jesus giving Peter the keys of the Kingdom, and Jesus giving Peter and the Apostles the power to "bind and loose," and Paul's description of the church as "the pillar and foundation of truth."