Institution of Reconciliation

[Franciscan]

How do I counter the claim that Thomas did not receive the power of (minister) reconcilaition since he was not there in the upper room when Jesus said “Whose ever sins you forgive are forgiven, whose ever sins you retain are retained”.(Jn 20)?

The person Im dealing with is trying to say that since this was not an institution (of reconciliation) based on Thomas’ absence, that likewise the command “Do this in memoery of me” was not an institution of the Eucharist either.

He claims both are just blanket statements.

 

[Della]

This person must think Jesus pretty stupid, then. Does he really think that Jesus would have to depend on anyone’s presence or absence to institiute whatever he wanted? That’s really reaching, IMO.

Jesus meant exactly what he said. No amount of trying to wiggle around that is going to cut any ice with the Lord. Maybe the person you are dealing with ought to think about that.

Besides, Jesus appeared for 40 days after his resurrection, instructing the Apostles before he ascended into heaven. If there were any discrepencies or misunderstandings, he surely would have cleared them up then.

On top of all this, the NT is the witness of life and mission of Jesus and the Apostles (IOW, of the Church), not a proof text for anyone’s notions. The Church knows what Jesus meant because it heard it from his own lips in the persons of the Apostles, and that ought to be good enough for anyone.

 

[dylanschrader]

Jesus was speaking to The Twelve, that is, not to individual apostles who happened to be gathered together but to the one college of the apostles as a whole. Thomas, sharing in the office of the apostles, was entrusted by Christ with everything entrusted to the apostles.

It is very Protestant to see the apostles as a collection of individuals rather than as it truly is: the apostleship pre-exists each individual apostle. That is why they can have successors. This is clear from how, in e.g., Mark’s Gospel Jesus gathers “The Twelve”–a corporate reality.

 

[John_Hiner]

I have recently noticed a detail that might help with this.

Leviticus says:

He said: This is the word that the Lord hath commanded to be done. And immediately he offered Aaron and his sons: and when he had washed them, He vested the high priest with the strait linen garment, girding him with the girdle, and putting on him the violet tunick, and over it he put the ephod . . . Leviticus 8:5-7 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

This follows a command given in Exodus 40:12-13.

This detail of the creation of the Levitical priesthood throws a new light on the washing of the Apostles’ feet at the Last Supper.

Pax Christi vobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Just harmonize the Gospels and you’ll see that Thomas get a similar sort of “coverage” from Mt 18:18 - “Amen, 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.” It was directed to the Twelve.

The other explanations above are also helpful.

 

[Franciscan]

Thanks all. Good points.

I had never heard that argument before about Thomas’ absence at Easter Night.

What bugs me and what you helped me to see is that the whole argument is very sola scriptura–“Prove in the Bible”. As if Christ were bound by that one part of the Deposit of Faith.