Bind/Loose?

[Judas_Thaddeus]

My question is this. If we consider the power to bind and loose as the power to define the deposit of faith in terms of doctrine, then how can two separate religious entities whose doctrines conflict in any way, both have a legitimate claim to that authority?

I believe that is why there can be only one true Church, headed by one true See.

 

[JonNC]

My question is this. If we consider the power to bind and loose as the power to define the deposit of faith in terms of doctrine, then how can two separate religious entities whose doctrines conflict in any way, both have a legitimate claim to that authority?

Great question, Steve.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon…which part of the Smalcald are you referring to?

I am familiar with the confession et al…my question more is towards church discipline, teaching, defining doctrine…so in your lutheran view, how is the church to exercise this authority to bind and loose?

The link will take you directly to Part III Articles VII and VIII, Of the Keys, and Confession.

On exercising the keys, from Augsburg:
bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article28

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Great question, Steve.

Jon

How is this question resolved among Lutherans? It seems apparent that Lutherans believe they enjoy this authority, as do the Anglicans. Yet they have conflicting doctrines, to one degree or another, with each other and with the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

How is this question resolved among Lutherans? It seems apparent that Lutherans believe they enjoy this authority, as do the Anglicans. Yet they have conflicting doctrines, to one degree or another, with each other and with the Catholic Church.

I think this is a vexing question for all of us. Your communion also feels they enjoy this authority, as does Orthodoxy. Now, we believe that, when it comes to polity, scripture isn’t specific. That’s why you see a range of polity among Lutheran synods, from hierarchical to completely congregational.
The fact is, outside of unity, each communion is going to exercise the Keys as they see is in agreement with scripture, and, to a lesser extent for some of us, Tradition.

That’s not what Christ wants, but that is what it currently is.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

I think this is a vexing question for all of us. Your communion also feels they enjoy this authority, as does Orthodoxy. Now, we believe that, when it comes to polity, scripture isn’t specific. That’s why you see a range of polity among Lutheran synods, from hierarchical to completely congregational.
The fact is, outside of unity, each communion is going to exercise the Keys as they see is in agreement with scripture, and, to a lesser extent for some of us, Tradition.

That’s not what Christ wants, but that is what it currently is.

Jon

Thanks, Jon. What this comes down to in my mind is the fact that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. If something is bound in heaven by the Catholic Church can it be loosed in heaven by the Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox Churches? Do you see what I mean? The only sensible resolution I can think of is that this authority must rest in only one Church, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon. What this comes down to in my mind is the fact that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. If something is bound in heaven by the Catholic Church can it be loosed in heaven by the Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox Churches? Do you see what I mean? The only sensible resolution I can think of is that this authority must rest in only one Church, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

Ok. Which one? And how do we decide other than on our say-so? I agree that we need one communion in unity. Otherwise, we are under God’s grace and mercy to seek to the best of our ability, His truth.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Ok. Which one? And how do we decide other than on our say-so? I agree that we need one communion in unity. Otherwise, we are under God’s grace and mercy to seek to the best of our ability, His truth.

Jon

As a Catholic, it is very clear to me which one it is.

But seriously, and I am asking this out of ignorance, did Martin Luther ever claim to have assumed this authority? Maybe I missed something along the way. I would imagine he believed that this authority belonged to the Catholic Church when he was a Catholic priest. So I assume that he believed this authority had to be taken from the Catholic Church and passed on to him at some point.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[JRKH]

Ok. Which one? And how do we decide other than on our say-so? I agree that we need one communion in unity. Otherwise, we are under God’s grace and mercy to seek to the best of our ability, His truth.

Jon

Jon - to me I think that the answer here is less about “which one” of the existing communions is spot on right - but rather which of the existing communions recognize the need for greater unity and are actively engaged in working through and overcoming divisions.
Those would include the RC - EO - Anglican and at least part of the Lutheran communions.

All such communions are seeking to follow the NT calls to unity.

That’s my thought anyway.

Peace
James

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks, Jon. What this comes down to in my mind is the fact that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. **If something is bound in heaven by the Catholic Church can it be loosed in heaven by the Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox Churches? **Do you see what I mean? The only sensible resolution I can think of is that this authority must rest in only one Church, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.

Good word
:yup: The papacy was confirmed a long time ago

…and yes, Martin thought himself a greater bishop than the Church had in 1000 yrs

Correct me if im wrong, Jon

 

[rcwitness]

In regard to my comment about Luther, I do know he was not a bishop of the CC. My mis-quote from him did make it sound that way. Never the less,

Quote:
“Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me”

But I dont want to make this an issue. My point is that he saw the unfortunate actions of the bishops (especially of Rome’s) as negating their authority over the Church. This is very understandably a difficult situation for anyone.

When Jesus told the people to do as the leaders teach, but not as they do, since they sit on the Seat of Moses…was He not saying this for His new Church? Only he was establiship a rebuilt House. And not one that abolished the Law, but fulfilled it, in Himself.

I once asked a very oppossitional Protestant friend,“How would the Jewish apostles, whom Jesus spoke before, understand the term ‘Keys of the Kingdom’?” He said, “I dont know”. I showed him where the oracle in Isaiah 22 uses these terms.

…Jon, you can very well interpret the commission to be on all the Apostles, which in a sense, is true. But like JRKH noted, so much of the actual operation of the Papal authority is misunderstood. The Pope is not to be an authority in himself, but the voice of the authority among bishops. “In those days, Peter stood up”

 

[JonNC]

As a Catholic, it is very clear to me which one it is.

But seriously, and I am asking this out of ignorance, did Martin Luther ever claim to have assumed this authority? Maybe I missed something along the way. I would imagine he believed that this authority belonged to the Catholic Church when he was a Catholic priest. So I assume that he believed this authority had to be taken from the Catholic Church and passed on to him at some point.

Thanks.

Steve

Steve,
I don’t think he ever assumed he had any authority, other than priest and theologian.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon - to me I think that the answer here is less about “which one” of the existing communions is spot on right - but rather which of the existing communions recognize the need for greater unity and are actively engaged in working through and overcoming divisions.
Those would include the RC - EO - Anglican and at least part of the Lutheran communions.

All such communions are seeking to follow the NT calls to unity.

That’s my thought anyway.

Peace
James

I agree, James. I also think it worth noting that the groups you mentioned tend to by communions that are sacramental, liturgical, and have a sense of the importance of doctrine and history.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

In regard to my comment about Luther, I do know he was not a bishop of the CC. My mis-quote from him did make it sound that way. Never the less,

Quote:
“Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me”

But I dont want to make this an issue. My point is that he saw the unfortunate actions of the bishops (especially of Rome’s) as negating their authority over the Church. This is very understandably a difficult situation for anyone.

When Jesus told the people to do as the leaders teach, but not as they do, since they sit on the Seat of Moses…was He not saying this for His new Church? Only he was establiship a rebuilt House. And not one that abolished the Law, but fulfilled it, in Himself.

I once asked a very oppossitional Protestant friend,“How would the Jewish apostles, whom Jesus spoke before, understand the term ‘Keys of the Kingdom’?” He said, “I dont know”. I showed him where the oracle in Isaiah 22 uses these terms.

…Jon, you can very well interpret the commission to be on all the Apostles, which in a sense, is true. But like JRKH noted, so much of the actual operation of the Papal authority is misunderstood. The Pope is not to be an authority in himself, but the voice of the authority among bishops. “In those days, Peter stood up”

RC - Nicely put…
One comment I would like to make as regards the misunderstanding of papal authority…
In conversation with others on these things we should not lose sight of the fact that for many centuries before, up to, and even beyond the time of the reformation, the Pope was a temporal as well as a spiritual leader…this fact (IMHO) caused no end of problems in many areas.
In such discussions it might be good if we could reach a point of separating the two things…the temporal aspect of the popes duties in those times and the spiritual aspect - as it evolved from the time of the fall of the western Roman empire.

Maybe a good thread topic…

Peace
James

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Steve,
I don’t think he ever assumed he had any authority, other than priest and theologian.
Jon

And doctor, don’t forget doctor, he self-declared himself a doctor!“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say
this to him: ‘**Dr. Martin Luther **will have it so, and he says that a papist and
a donkey are the same thing’.”
THE ARROGANCE OF THAT GUY!

 

[JonNC]

And doctor, don’t forget doctor, he self-declared himself a doctor!“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say
this to him: ‘**Dr. Martin Luther **will have it so, and he says that a papist and
a donkey are the same thing’.”
THE ARROGANCE OF THAT GUY!

First, he was a doctor. He earned a doctorate.

Have you read the entire letter from which you have lifted a partial quote without context? Do you understand the use of sarcasm, which Dr. Luther was known for?

I won’t defend his insults, anymore than I would defend how some in his day treated him. Luther was Luther, warts and all. But I will respond when his words are misconstrued, or taken out of context.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

And doctor, don’t forget doctor, he self-declared himself a doctor!“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say
this to him: ‘**Dr. Martin Luther **will have it so, and he says that a papist and
a donkey are the same thing’.”
THE ARROGANCE OF THAT GUY!

First, he was a doctor. He earned a doctorate.

Have you read the entire letter from which you have lifted a partial quote without context? Do you understand the use of sarcasm, which Dr. Luther was known for?

I won’t defend his insults, anymore than I would defend how some in his day treated him. Luther was Luther, warts and all. But I will respond when his words are misconstrued, or taken out of context.

Jon

And this is why I thoroughly dislike the use of sarcasm and hyperbole in such things.
Yes - it seems that Luther (and perhaps others) were fond of using hyperbole and sarcasm, but it seems that such things can very often have negative consequences.
They can come around later and “bite one” in the posterior regions…

Sarcasm or not - I’m afraid it speaks to an attitude that, while it may or may not be arrogance, would certainly be defiant - and in a decidedly unchristian manner…
Of course there was a fair bit of that going around at the time…

Peace
James

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
I don’t think he ever assumed he had any authority, other than priest and theologian.

Jon

Thanks, Jon.

Originaly Posted by JonNC
I agree, James. I also think it worth noting that the groups you mentioned tend to be communions that are sacramental, liturgical, and have a sense of the importance of doctrine and history.

Jon

I agree completely with your observation regarding liturgical and sacramental communions. Unity will have to begin there if we are to have unity at all. I pray for that day to come but we must also be aware that the enemy is doing his best to prevent this. It is no coincidence that as we strive for unity, various factions of both Lutheran and Anglican (Episcopalian) are putting up road blocks which previously did not exist (female priests, actively gay and lesbian clergy, etc.) which can never be accepted by either the CC nor the EO. It is the work of the one who desires division within the Body of Christ. But that is a subject for another thread.

God bless.

 

[fallow_spirit]

Below are two passages in the Gospel of Matthew which appear to clearly
designate authority to the succession of Saint Peter, ie the Papacy, which
leaves me to wonder what non-Catholics are to do with these verses:“And I will give you [Peter] the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, and what-
ever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
(Matthew 16:19).

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.”
(Matthew 18:18)
Now in rabbinical language,
to “bind” is to forbid and to
“loose” is to permit.

But what is a Protestant, for example, to do with what Jesus said in Matthew?

Did this binding and loosing deal die with Peter, along with the Keys to Heaven?

Most that I know say the keys refer to Peter ‘opening the doors of Christendom’ when he first preached and when he brought the gospel to the Gentiles. I don’t remember how they took the binding and loosing. Something about Peter only binding and loosing what was already bound and loosed in heaven, iow just reporting what had already been done.