Problem with using "Binding and Loosing Powers" as an argument for Infallibility

[Paul_Edwards]

Randy Carson,

You demonstrate how that view is contradictory. For the same promise of binding and loosing is given to the local church (Matthew 18) in a situation related to a single brother who doesn’t want to reconcile with the brother he sinned against.

That example is used because excommunication is one of the meanings

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Paul Edwards,

Wait a minute. So how do you gather “infallibility” and “fallible excommunication” from the same promise of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”. Isn’t that a contradiction? At least it begs the question how you could derive both meanings.

 

[petra22]

So the whole college of Bishops excommunicates a fornicator?? (1 Cor 5:1-13)

It’s not just the bishops or college of bishops but the teachings of Jesus that says fornication will keep a person out of heaven…
should the church then, not tell people what Jesus said in his teachings? He is the Word, He doesn’t lie… Yes, the bishops agree and teach what Jesus taught. Oh so many of us are guilty. Why do we not want to humbly admit our guilt but try to poke holes in the process??? The purifying process…

 

[God_Seeker_1]

That has no relation to what we speaking about. We are here discussing the “binding and loosing” powers of the local church, and how this does not necessarily entail infallibility. That leaves us with the question of why Catholics read infallibility into the binding and loosing powers of matthew 16.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

You demonstrate how that view is contradictory. For the same promise of binding and loosing is given to the local church (Matthew 18) in a situation related to a single brother who doesn’t want to reconcile with the brother he sinned against.

The promise was not made to “local churches”; it was made to the Apostles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That has no relation to what we speaking about. We are here discussing the “binding and loosing” powers of the local church, and how this does not necessarily entail infallibility. That leaves us with the question of why Catholics read infallibility into the binding and loosing powers of matthew 16.

The local churches are not individually infallible, and they are all ultimately subject to the head of the Church who is the Bishop of Rome.

While local churches (Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, etc) are named in the NT, they are the ancient equivalents of the Diocese of Raleigh, the Archdiocese of Atlanta, the Diocese of Topeka, etc. of today.

 

[JRKH]

I still think that the general force of the OP has gone unnoticed.

What I am saying here is that there have been Catholic Apologists, who trying to argue Peter’s infallibility from Scripture, will point to the promise that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven to try and prove that Scripture teaches that Peter is infallible.

On this specific point I will agree - it is difficult to argue infallibility if one is using this passage alone. However, a good apologist will not use this one passage in isolation. Rather it is part of a larger argument.
Perhaps that is where the problem is occurring in this conversation. You are trying to make a very specific point on a very specific aspect of an apologetic argument. The replies that you are receiving largely (it seems) are trying to place the argument into it’s larger view…Which is how we would want to present it.
Does that make sense?

However, the same promise is given to the Local Community, whether this is autonomous or in communion with Peter is not in question, and that promise is related to an individual person who is unrepentant.

Actually this is not true - the relationship of the local Church to Peter (and his successors) is very much a part of the question. The interconnectedness of the local communities to the universal Church is part and parcel of the Catholic psyche just as the independence of the local communities is ingrained in the psyche of many / most protestants.

However - you saying this points up one of the difficulties in these types of discussions. This is one of the things that can very easily get us talking past each other to the point of utter frustration.

Therefore, since the modern Roman Catholic Church restricts infallibility “declarations” (notice we are not here speaking of the total church) to be that which is spoken by the Pope ex cathedra (doesn’t mean nothing else is binding of course), we cannot utilize the promise of binding and loosing to entail infallibility, per se.

Is that more clearer?

Yes I think it is more clear…But I also think that it does not totally negate the passage as a part of the larger and more encompassing argument.

So the whole college of Bishops excommunicates a fornicator?? (1 Cor 5:1-13)

Yes - When the Church promulgates a teaching - and when that teaching is locally implemented, or some discipline is locally administered based on that teaching, it is the whole “College of Bishops” that is acting. It is the whole Church acting in unison.
And notice - this is precisely what would have happened after the council of Jerusalem in Acts.
The council made a decision and wrote a declaration to that effect. This was carried back to Antioch…but it did not stop there. From that time forward, every local community where this question had been raised or would be raised, now had a firm teaching upon which to base their action. Harken back to Mt 18…Take it to the Church - Listen to the Church - - not the local Church to the exclusion of the universal…but to “The Church”.

It takes a while to really grasp this…At least it did me…

Peace
James

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Paul Edwards,

Wait a minute. So how do you gather “infallibility” and “fallible excommunication” from the same promise of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”. Isn’t that a contradiction? At least it begs the question how you could derive both meanings.

Because obviously heaven cannot bind a wrong teaching because that would be a lie, however even an unjust excommunication is not a lie.

However even if that explanation is wrong, the gates of hell can not prevail against the universal church even though they can prevail against individuals, so the church is infallible when binding the universal church to a teaching but not when an individual is excommunicated

 

[Paul_Edwards]

That has no relation to what we speaking about. We are here discussing the “binding and loosing” powers of the local church, and how this does not necessarily entail infallibility. That leaves us with the question of why Catholics read infallibility into the binding and loosing powers of matthew 16.

He said “what you bind on EARTH(universal) will be bound in heaven”, so it is the universal binding which will be infallible

 

[God_Seeker_1]

On this specific point I will agree - it is difficult to argue infallibility if one is using this passage alone. However, a good apologist will not use this one passage in isolation. Rather it is part of a larger argument.
Perhaps that is where the problem is occurring in this conversation. You are trying to make a very specific point on a very specific aspect of an apologetic argument. The replies that you are receiving largely (it seems) are trying to place the argument into it’s larger view…Which is how we would want to present it.
Does that make sense?

Actually this is not true - the relationship of the local Church to Peter (and his successors) is very much a part of the question. The interconnectedness of the local communities to the universal Church is part and parcel of the Catholic psyche just as the independence of the local communities is ingrained in the psyche of many / most protestants.

However - you saying this points up one of the difficulties in these types of discussions. This is one of the things that can very easily get us talking past each other to the point of utter frustration.

Yes I think it is more clear…But I also think that it does not totally negate the passage as a part of the larger and more encompassing argument.

Yes - When the Church promulgates a teaching - and when that teaching is locally implemented, or some discipline is locally administered based on that teaching, it is the whole “College of Bishops” that is acting. It is the whole Church acting in unison.
And notice - this is precisely what would have happened after the council of Jerusalem in Acts.
The council made a decision and wrote a declaration to that effect. This was carried back to Antioch…but it did not stop there. From that time forward, every local community where this question had been raised or would be raised, now had a firm teaching upon which to base their action. Harken back to Mt 18…Take it to the Church - Listen to the Church - - not the local Church to the exclusion of the universal…but to “The Church”.

It takes a while to really grasp this…At least it did me…

Peace
James

I still don’t think you understand what I am saying.

Let me first ask you this question. What is the scenario of Matthew 18 when Jesus speaks of binding and loosing on earth?

Secondly, is this promise the same promise given to Peter alone in Matthew 16?

Thirdly, is this power to “bind and loose” only for the Apostles, or is it also passed into the episcopate (the universal office of bishop)?

If the power to bind and loose is in the hands of all the Bishops, and no matter how far apart they are, they are working together in unison with Peter’s successors who are the principle of unity, and one of these bishops places a ban on a sinning individual, does infallibility play in that action? Tx

 

[shelby_sun]

I still don’t think you understand what I am saying.

Let me first ask you this question. What is the scenario of Matthew 18 when Jesus speaks of binding and loosing on earth?

Secondly, is this promise the same promise given to Peter alone in Matthew 16?

Thirdly, is this power to “bind and loose” only for the Apostles, or is it also passed into the episcopate (the universal office of bishop)?

If the power to bind and loose is in the hands of all the Bishops, and no matter how far apart they are, they are working together in unison with Peter’s successors who are the principle of unity, and one of these bishops places a ban on a sinning individual, does infallibility play in that action? Tx

I am sorry but even someone with the deepest faith and knowledge of the Church and its teaching surely could not truly believe that infallibility could be assumed to be in play in that action, at least the vast majority of time. These are men we are talking about, flawed sinners like the rest of us. To try to see them working in a union as you suggest even as Peter’s successors, they would be open to error on every single step in the process.

Is it possible that they assess every thing involved correctly to perfection, it is possible but not likely. That doesn’t mean they come to the wrong decision, but infallibility most likely would not take place.

 

[JRKH]

I still don’t think you understand what I am saying.

Well - I’m trying…

Let me first ask you this question. What is the scenario of Matthew 18 when Jesus speaks of binding and loosing on earth?

Well the specific scenario is about when there is sin in the Church - when someone sins.
But of course as we read scripture we can often see larger or slightly different ramifications to a given scenario.
For instance…I’ve had many protestants say that the scenario is very specific to one brother sinning against another.
I then ask them if preaching a false doctrine is a sin…they say yes…I say, "Then this passage applies to doctrinal issues as well as personal sin.
One who preaches something false - sins. They need to be corrected…and the issue is taken to “the Church”.
Of course the Church is local but it is also universal - so the binding or loosing decision is made at the appropriate level.

Secondly, is this promise the same promise given to Peter alone in Matthew 16?

To me - yes it is the same promise. Same words = same meaning.
I don’t see it so much as a different promise as an elaboration on the promise made to Peter. For Peter hearing this, he would know that he is to act in concert with his fellow Apostles. That they all for the Church.
We see this in action in the Council in Acts 15 all the way down to today. The Pope never truly acts alone or in isolation - but in connection with his fellow bishops.

Thirdly, is this power to “bind and loose” only for the Apostles, or is it also passed into the episcopate (the universal office of bishop)?

Oh definitely it is passed on. The bishops in communion with each other have this authority. When a man is ordained, the same rite is used that Jesus used with the original apostles. He gave them authority. They use that authority to pass on authority.

Jesus knew that he would not be returning in their lifetime. He also knew that the world was too big for the Apostles to personally get to and be everywhere. The authority - and apostolic succession of that authority is critical to the passing on of the teachings of Christ.

If the power to bind and loose is in the hands of all the Bishops, and no matter how far apart they are, they are working together in unison with Peter’s successors who are the principle of unity, and one of these bishops places a ban on a sinning individual, does infallibility play in that action? Tx

So long as the ban is lawfully placed - within the understood teachings of the Church then I would say yes it must be seen as a correct.
Now I use the term “correct” rather than “infallible”, not as a dodge, as an effort to be clear. in my meaning.

In the specific case that you point to - of a bishop “binding” an individual in sin and banning them from the Church (unless and until they repent) then the binding here on earth is binding in heaven.

Don’t know if I’m getting any closer to truly answering you…but I hope this helps…

Peace
James

 

[MrSnaith]

I still don’t think you understand what I am saying.

I have just read through this entire thread, and I have to say, I don’t think it’s everyone else who’s not understanding you. There’s definitely a disconnect, for sure. I’m going to try my best to shed some light on this.

The question regards “binding and loosing” as an argument for infallibility. Let me state plainly that yes, this is correct, and infallibility is implied in both Matthew 16 and 18.

You object to this, saying that if this is true, then not only does Peter have infallibility, but then so do local churches. Your evidence for this? The context of Matthew 18 being a discussion of the excommunication of an individual within the setting of a local church.

The problem with your argument is that, while the context of the passage overall is of a local church, the passage specifically mentioning “binding and loosing” is in the immediate context of the whole church.

Allow me to demonstrate.

Matthew 18:15:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

Jesus doesn’t mention binding and loosing at this stage, so it doesn’t reside with the individual who is rebuking.

Matthew 18:16:

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

Jesus doesn’t mention binding and loosing at this stage, so it doesn’t reside with the congregation, or local parish.

Matthew 18:17:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

It is immediately after this passage, in Matthew 18:18 that Jesus declares the power to “bind and loose.” Therefore, we may conclude that the power resides with “the church.” It is your opinion, then, that in this passage “the church” means “the local church.” But what is the difference between a small group of believers (two or three witnesses) and a larger group of believers (say, a parish of 30 or 40)?

The reality is that infallibility doesn’t reside within either the individual (except in the office of Peter) or the group, but rather it resides with “the church.” It’s a difference in kind. The church here has to mean the universal church.

Jesus doesn’t declare the power of binding and loosing to “disciples” but rather to “Apostles,” and He didn’t declare it to a several individuals, but rather to a unified group. The infallibility Jesus declared in Matthew 18:18 was upon a unified collective of Bishops.

Thus, the Church teaches that both the Pope in His individual office, and the Church as a whole, teaches infallibly. Both the Pope and the Universal Church are infallible.

So, what’s the lesson here? If you can’t convince the sinner, you don’t have the authority to excommunicate him. If a group of you can’t convince the sinner, you don’t have the authority to excommunicate him. If the sinner continues in his defiance in the face of the teachings of the universal Church, then what? Not, “you shall declare him to be a heathen and publican.” No. Instead, “let him be to thee as a heathen and publican.” That is, it is the sinner’s defiance in the face of the Church that makes him “excommunicate,” not any declaration by the local church. Excommunications are nothing more than a public recognition of an already true fact. Sin separates you from Christ, and deliberate and willful defiance of Church authority separates you from the Church.

Yes, the power to bind and loose implies infallibility. And it does so in both Matthew 16 and 18. But the infallibility declared in 18:18 resides with the authority of the Church as a unified whole, and it is defiance of this authority that makes the sinner a heathen and publican.

 

[JRKH]

I am sorry but even someone with the deepest faith and knowledge of the Church and its teaching surely could not truly believe that infallibility could be assumed to be in play in that action, at least the vast majority of time. These are men we are talking about, flawed sinners like the rest of us. To try to see them working in a union as you suggest even as Peter’s successors, they would be open to error on every single step in the process.

Is it possible that they assess every thing involved correctly to perfection, it is possible but not likely. That doesn’t mean they come to the wrong decision, but infallibility most likely would not take place.

Excuse me for disagreeing here…I am by no means a scholar and I definitely think that this discussion in general is full of apples and oranges comparisons…but I actually DO believe that such cases ARE correctly rendered.

The fact that the passage says tell it to the Church and listen to the Church means that the actions are not taken in secret and that the matter is thoroughly discussed and weighed and prayed over. If we are to believe in the Spirit guidance of the Church then we must believe that in such cases, the spirit is active and protecting those in authority.

Now - having said that - I must issue a caveat. Sin most certainly CAN enter into such matters. This person or that person CAN give false information. However - such sin will not make the decision wrong. The decision is made correctly on the basis of the best information available. If there is fault - - it is not in the decision.

Peace
James

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I have just read through this entire thread, and I have to say, I don’t think it’s everyone else who’s not understanding you. There’s definitely a disconnect, for sure. I’m going to try my best to shed some light on this.

The question regards “binding and loosing” as an argument for infallibility. Let me state plainly that yes, this is correct, and infallibility is implied in both Matthew 16 and 18.

You object to this, saying that if this is true, then not only does Peter have infallibility, but then so do local churches. Your evidence for this? The context of Matthew 18 being a discussion of the excommunication of an individual within the setting of a local church.

The problem with your argument is that, while the context of the passage overall is of a local church, the passage specifically mentioning “binding and loosing” is in the immediate context of the whole church.

Allow me to demonstrate.

Matthew 18:15:

Jesus doesn’t mention binding and loosing at this stage, so it doesn’t reside with the individual who is rebuking.

Matthew 18:16:

Jesus doesn’t mention binding and loosing at this stage, so it doesn’t reside with the congregation, or local parish.

Matthew 18:17:

It is immediately after this passage, in Matthew 18:18 that Jesus declares the power to “bind and loose.” Therefore, we may conclude that the power resides with “the church.” It is your opinion, then, that in this passage “the church” means “the local church.” But what is the difference between a small group of believers (two or three witnesses) and a larger group of believers (say, a parish of 30 or 40)?

The reality is that infallibility doesn’t reside within either the individual (except in the office of Peter) or the group, but rather it resides with “the church.” It’s a difference in kind. The church here has to mean the universal church.

Jesus doesn’t declare the power of binding and loosing to “disciples” but rather to “Apostles,” and He didn’t declare it to a several individuals, but rather to a unified group. The infallibility Jesus declared in Matthew 18:18 was upon a unified collective of Bishops.

Thus, the Church teaches that both the Pope in His individual office, and the Church as a whole, teaches infallibly. Both the Pope and the Universal Church are infallible.

So, what’s the lesson here? If you can’t convince the sinner, you don’t have the authority to excommunicate him. If a group of you can’t convince the sinner, you don’t have the authority to excommunicate him. If the sinner continues in his defiance in the face of the teachings of the universal Church, then what? Not, “you shall declare him to be a heathen and publican.” No. Instead, “let him be to thee as a heathen and publican.” That is, it is the sinner’s defiance in the face of the Church that makes him “excommunicate,” not any declaration by the local church. Excommunications are nothing more than a public recognition of an already true fact. Sin separates you from Christ, and deliberate and willful defiance of Church authority separates you from the Church.

Yes, the power to bind and loose implies infallibility. And it does so in both Matthew 16 and 18. But the infallibility declared in 18:18 resides with the authority of the Church as a unified whole, and it is defiance of this authority that makes the sinner a heathen and publican.

Can you support your interpretation with an authority from the Church, or even a biblical scholar? I can’t think of one scholar who would think this is the the “whole Church”. in view at Matthew 18.

 

[shelby_sun]

Excuse me for disagreeing here…I am by no means a scholar and I definitely think that this discussion in general is full of apples and oranges comparisons…but I actually DO believe that such cases ARE correctly rendered.

The fact that the passage says tell it to the Church and listen to the Church means that the actions are not taken in secret and that the matter is thoroughly discussed and weighed and prayed over. If we are to believe in the Spirit guidance of the Church then we must believe that in such cases, the spirit is active and protecting those in authority.

Now - having said that - I must issue a caveat. Sin most certainly CAN enter into such matters. This person or that person CAN give false information. However - such sin will not make the decision wrong. The decision is made correctly on the basis of the best information available. If there is fault - - it is not in the decision.

Peace
James

As I said I do think it is possible, but we probably disagree with how often it truly takes place. But how are we to know when it actually takes place?

Now even though decision may come with errors somewhere in the possess, that doesn’t mean that the ultimate decision is wrong. Again, we just cannot know which have taken place under infallible situations until it is declared by the Church. Are you say we are to assume it has until proven otherwise? Just try to understand you completely.

 

[MrSnaith]

Can you support your interpretation with an authority from the Church, or even a biblical scholar? I can’t think of one scholar who would think this is the the “whole Church”. in view at Matthew 18.

This is what I’ve dug up so far:

From the Haydock commentary:

veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_18

Tell the church. This not only shews the order of fraternal correction, but also every man’s duty in submitting to the judgment of the Church. Wi. — There cannot be a plainer condemnation of those who make particular creeds, and will not submit the articles of their belief to the judgment of the authority appointed by Christ. A.

Here Haydock doesn’t clearly state wether he means “local” or “universal” Church, but in referencing “those who make particular creeds” it may be understood as the universal Church which has a single, universally accepted creed.

The Catena Auria commentary collected by Acquinas

veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/Matthew_18:15-17

Jerome: If yet he will not hear them, then it must be told to many, that he may be held in abhorrence; so that he who could not be saved by his own sense of shame, may be saved by public disgrace; whence it follows, **“If he will not hear them, tell it to the Church.”

Chrys.: That is, to those that are over the Church.**

Gloss., ap. Anselm: Or, tell it to the whole Chinch, that his infamy may be the greater. After all these things follows excommunication, which ought to be inflicted by the mouth of the Church, that is, by the Priest, and when he excommunicates, the whole Church works with him; as it follows, “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen, and a publican.”

Here, the fathers appear to read it as a local Church, but in communion with the whole Church.

From SACRED SCRIPTURE SHORTCUTS: BIBLICAL EVIDENCE for CATHOLIC TEACHINGS:

veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Church/Church+is+Authoritative

Mt 18:17

Jesus: Go to the Church for answers

The Church has the final word, not the bible. The Church has the authority to decide contentious issues. So much so, that the one who does not listen to the Church is to be treated as a heathen (i.e., a sinner outside the Church in need of conversion).

Protestants commonly use “church” in their translations (KJV, NKJV, 21C-KJV, NIV, NASB, LB, NLT, ASV, RSV, etc.) rendering this verse. A very few try to muddy the issue by suggesting the verse refers only to a local church assembly or congregation. This ignores the Unity of the Church and the Universality of the Church, in effect denying that the Church is the source of Truth.

 

[slh3016]

Excuse my bluntness and pardon me if I’m wrong about this, God Seeker, but what’s your trump card?

I’ve read this entire thread and while I have MANY questions, doubts, and concerns of my own regarding certain RCC teachings, there is something amiss in all this, as others have said. It’s seems as if you are trying to bait the other posters into some answer that you will later use against them to prove your ultimate point. So, why not just get that point out there hash it out?

Again, if I’m wrong, I apologize. However, I think there have been SEVERAL great answers to your line of questioning that even I, a Protestant, can agree with.

 

[JRKH]

As I said I do think it is possible, but we probably disagree with how often it truly takes place. But how are we to know when it actually takes place?

Now even though decision may come with errors somewhere in the possess, that doesn’t mean that the ultimate decision is wrong. Again, we just cannot know which have taken place under infallible situations until it is declared by the Church. Are you say we are to assume it has until proven otherwise? Just try to understand you completely.

I think that a way to understand this is to look at Mt 23:1-3 where Jesus is speaking to the Disciples about the Pharisees and their rules.
While it is obvious that Jesus has problems with the Pharisees as leaders, still he upholds their authority to teach. Jesus “binds” the Jews to obeying the teachings of the Pharisees while not emulating them in their errors.

The same thing is true today. We have those in authority over us and who sit - not on Moses seat, but on Peter’s - and we are obliged to obey them if we are to be found in obedience to Christ.

If the leader acts wrongly and the disciple obeys - where does the sin lay?

Peace
James

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Excuse my bluntness and pardon me if I’m wrong about this, God Seeker, but what’s your trump card?

I’ve read this entire thread and while I have MANY questions, doubts, and concerns of my own regarding certain RCC teachings, there is something amiss in all this, as others have said. It’s seems as if you are trying to bait the other posters into some answer that you will later use against them to prove your ultimate point. So, why not just get that point out there hash it out?

Again, if I’m wrong, I apologize. However, I think there have been SEVERAL great answers to your line of questioning that even I, a Protestant, can agree with.

That the teaching on Papal Infallibility is not deduced from Scripture, but is rather a produce of the Oral Tradition. Ultimately, there is no use in going to Scripture to form an argument for Papal infallibility. That’s the main point.