Again, it isn’t a novel reading when the text links the keys to loosing and binding of sins, and when the early Church Fathers acknowledge this in their writings. What seems novel is trying to use this to say that Peter’s successors, by virtue of the office of the keys, have the right to declare doctrines that were not revealed by Christ or his apostles, rather than its original meaning in the context of forgiving or retaining sins.
Whose, your own scribes? Glad you agree that your peeps aren’t objective.Again… personal interpretation of Scripture.
Except that it doesn’t. There’s no “of sins” there except in your interpretation.
No – the ECFs note that the link is Peter, himself, in his person! You seem to keep on forgetting that!
Except that this isn’t what the Catholic Church claims! We don’t invent “new doctrine”!
Again, if you can find an instance of the notion of divine forgiveness of sin through apostolic action in Mt 16 or 18, please cite it.
Again, you are ignoring the other passages of scripture we discussed where loosing and binding are defined.
Not forgetting it. Ignoring the premise because they say Peter first, followed by the apostles.
I reject this premise as well.
Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18; John 20:23 as previously discussed.
There are precisely two: Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:19. Other passages talk about the forgiveness of sin (namely, John 20:22), but not in terms of “binding and loosing,” as such.
Really? Let’s look, again:
So… Peter. Not “Peter and apostles” as source of unity.
You ignored the rest of the quote where binding and loosing was described as the power to forgive and retain sins and that this power was provided to all the apostles. Which was my point to begin with. Also, this assumes that later generations remained faithful to the doctrine of Peter, which is another question altogether.
Except that this isn’t what the quote says! C’mon, Hodos!
Did you have something specific in mind?