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

[petra22]

Hello everyone,

I’ve heard Catholics argue that when Jesus told Peter “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”, he in effect is giving Peter the power of infallibility, for:

1. Peter binds or looses on earth
2. Such binding or loosing is valid in heaven
3. If it’s valid in heaven, then God is behind it
4. Therefore, the binding and loosing is infallible

However, in Matthew 18, Jesus says all the local churches have the same binding and loosing powers “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

So how do we argue against Protestants who bring this objection up, and then try to show how each local church has binding and loosing powers?

I read Matthew 18 and I don’t see where he said “local churches…” He was talking to his apostles and they all belonged to the one church He founded…

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for the reply.

But if we are going to allow for Christ’s promise to the local Church, namely, that what the local Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what the local Church looses will be loosed in heaven, to not be free from error, then how can we say that the same promise to Peter in Matt 16 is free from error?

Obedience to the Magisterium of the Catholic (universal) Church erases all chance of error at even the local and individual level. As to the local Church, we can compare their teaching to the catechism - the sum total of Church teaching as it is the sum total of God’s revealed truth.

Don’t allow those in error to complicate this for you. Quite simply, by rejecting the very concept of infallibility, they freely admit that their Church is capable - even liable - to teach error. Would you belong to such a Church?

 

[ezeekl]

Hello everyone,

I’ve heard Catholics argue that when Jesus told Peter “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”, he in effect is giving Peter the power of infallibility, for:

1. Peter binds or looses on earth
2. Such binding or loosing is valid in heaven
3. If it’s valid in heaven, then God is behind it
4. Therefore, the binding and loosing is infallible

However, in Matthew 18, Jesus says all the local churches have the same binding and loosing powers “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.

So how do we argue against Protestants who bring this objection up, and then try to show how each local church has binding and loosing powers?

In Mt 16 Jesus is addressing Peter individually. In Mt 18 Jesus is addressing the Apostles, including Peter, collectively (as a group). Therefore, because of Mt 16, Peter can bind or loose without the other apostles involvement but none of the other apostles can bind or loose unless it is done collectively and with Peter included.

 

[shelby_sun]

There are only a few teaching the Catholic Church says are infallible teachings and 2 of them have to do with Mary. This is a huge misconception of many Catholic who think that many of the laws of the Catholic Church are seen as coming from infallibility.

Why bother with arguing with the Protestants anyway. Just go out and live your faith and hep others.

 

[Abu]

God Seeker #11
How does Peter being given the same binding and loosing powers then denote infallibility, if indeed the same power is vested in a local Church. We can insert the issue of a local Church erring, but then that would also cast doubt on the promise Jesus made in Matthew 18, namely, that whatever the local Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven

You’ve had some good answers that show that your argument is based on a misconception.

To sum up:
Here is Christ’s commission to St Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

**To St Peter singly, first, and later to the Twelve **
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to St Peter alone:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Every bishop is subject to St Peter’s authority, and can only teach doctrine that has been approved by the Pope.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’." (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Actually I think that there have been several good answers already…

The key here is that there is no distinction between the local church and the universal church.

Peace
James

There is no distinction between local Church and universal church? Of course, in essence, the local and universal Church are the same, for Christ is all and in all.

But when it comes to authority, the local Church and the universal Church operate on different wavelengths. In Matthew 18, the promise of binding and loosing is in action upon a human person who refuses to repent of his sin…which tells me that it is more than just a faith and morals issue. Jesus is telling the Church that by “binding” this individual, they are viewing this impenitent man as a heathen or a tax collector.

This is why directly afterward, Peter asks how many times should I forgive my brother. Therefore, binding and loosing deals even with banishing someone from the congregation for not repenting and living a holy life. And the promise of binding on earth that which will be bound in heaven is even said to apply in this instance.

Therefore, it would seem difficult to read infallibility into the promise of binding and loosing in Matthew 16.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

No, it didn’t. The population of Christians in the first and early second century was small enough were all Christians celebrated Mass in the same place presided over by the Bishop. Cities such as Corinth only had one “Church” parish.

As the Church spread out local Churches were presided over by their metropolitan bishops, who still maintained communion with the Apostolic Sees(Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem[before it was finally destroyed and razed], and later Constantinople). This lasted well into the early 300’s due to various persecutions other circumstances.

The diocesan system didn’t develop until after the time of Constantine, which took from Diocletian’s political diocesan system, and further developed into the middle ages as Christianity spread. Local parishes were developed once it was decided that Bishops would be limited to a diocese and Masses would be presided locally by parish presbyters(priests) in union with the local ordinary(the diocesan Bishop).

That’s true, but only due to what I explained above, not because of separate
“local” parishes that protestants believe to be comparable to their faith communities.

I never implied that the early Church was a aggregate division of local churches like protestant…as my last statement makes clear. I apologize for not making this clearer.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Infallibility, as far as the church is concerned deals with matters of faith and morality…by claiming the reading deals with infallibility is comparing apples and oranges.

So then infallibility is not entailed by the promise of binding and loosing? If so, I think it makes perfect sense.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I read Matthew 18 and I don’t see where he said “local churches…” He was talking to his apostles and they all belonged to the one church He founded…

Well, it is clearly implied that by “tell it to the Church”, it does not mean that anytime there is a dispute between two brothers in the Church, that the Pope of Rome should be notified every time. The level at which the excommunication is metted out is implied at the local level, meaning the officers of the local Church.

Secondly, when two or three witnesses are the step just prior to telling it to the Church, it should be clear that was it mean is the local congregation’s leaders, and not the worldwide Church.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Obedience to the Magisterium of the Catholic (universal) Church erases all chance of error at even the local and individual level. As to the local Church, we can compare their teaching to the catechism - the sum total of Church teaching as it is the sum total of God’s revealed truth.

Don’t allow those in error to complicate this for you. Quite simply, by rejecting the very concept of infallibility, they freely admit that their Church is capable - even liable - to teach error. Would you belong to such a Church?

The promise of binding and loosing also applied to things that are beside teaching and morals. The binding that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 18 is banishing an impenitent from the local congregational meetings. This is not just an issue of what we believe.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

In Mt 16 Jesus is addressing Peter individually. In Mt 18 Jesus is addressing the Apostles, including Peter, collectively (as a group). Therefore, because of Mt 16, Peter can bind or loose without the other apostles involvement but none of the other apostles can bind or loose unless it is done collectively and with Peter included.

So the Pope has to be involved when the local Church excommunicates a fornicator? When St. Paul ordered the Corinthians to execute excommunication upon the sexually immoral man, he does not himself consult with Peter. In fact, he chastises the church of Corinth for not already excommunicating the immoral man.

Jesus is speaking of a principle which would last unto the end of time here in Matthew 18…therefore we should not restrict such binding and loosing powers to just Peter and the Apostles.

 

[Amandil]

So the Pope has to be involved when the local Church excommunicates a fornicator? When St. Paul ordered the Corinthians to execute excommunication upon the sexually immoral man, he does not himself consult with Peter. In fact, he chastises the church of Corinth for not already excommunicating the immoral man.

Jesus is speaking of a principle which would last unto the end of time here in Matthew 18…therefore we should not restrict such binding and loosing powers to just Peter and the Apostles.

That’s the principle of subdidarity. The bishop of Corinth had the perfect right to excommunicated the fornicator without Paul’s order. Paul was affirming this by his letter.

Now, hypothetically, if the fornicator was a bishop, then Paul or Peter would need to be personally involved.

 

[Abu]

shelby sun #23
There are only a few teaching the Catholic Church says are infallible teachings and 2 of them have to do with Mary. This is a huge misconception of many Catholic who think that many of the laws of the Catholic Church are seen as coming from infallibility.

No, laws are not infallible, but doctrines and dogmas are the subject of infallibility.

Further it is good sense to pay attention to sound reasoning.
**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope can proclaim, and many have, infallible dogmas and doctrines and one example is the dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I

Why bother with arguing with the Protestants anyway. Just go out and live your faith and hep others.

Such a presumption fails utterly to understand and obey the leaching of Vatican II and Saints John XXIII and John Paul II. The attitude and ability of offering the truth to others is mandated to the best of our ability, which skill can be learned and developed in apologetics.

See:
"Be A Catholic Apologist - Without Apology" | Carl E. Olson
Extract:
‘Catholic apologetics is the defense and explanation of the teachings, beliefs, and practices of the Catholic Church. Its goal is to remove objections, shed light on difficult or misunderstood matters, and ultimately help win minds and souls for Jesus Christ. Apologetics is the activity of helping people answer the question: “Why should I be Catholic?” It does so by engaging the mind to reach the heart.

‘The new evangelization promoted and articulated by Pope John Paul II emphasizes the importance of ordinary Catholics sharing their testimonies of faith with others. Dry facts and logical arguments may leave many people cold, but few cannot resist the story of a soul transformed and made anew by God’s grace. In this way the exhortation of the first pope can be realized in the life of every Catholic: “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” No apologies necessary.’
ignatiusinsight.com/features/ceo_apologetics_oct04.asp

 

[shelby_sun]

To Abu, please review the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are very few infallibly teaching. Go to the Vatican website for more information.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for the comments.

However, that still kind of side steps the issue.

Maybe I should explain myself a bit better.

The power to “bind and loose” is seen in action when the local Church excommunicates an unloving brother who refuses to listen to the accusing brother, the two/three witnesses, and finally the officers of the Church. Since the modern Roman Catholic Church teaches that infallibility cannot be an affair within a local Church setting (besides the Roman Church), the power to “bind and loose” does not by itself denote the charism of infallibility.

This leads to the ultimate question. How does Peter being given the same binding and loosing powers then denote infallibility, if indeed the same power is vested in a local Church. We can insert the issue of a local Church erring, but then that would also cast doubt on the promise Jesus made in Matthew 18, namely, that whatever the local Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven. And if we are willing to allow these binding and loosing powers to not “always” be effective in heaven, then we would have to say the same about the power to bind and loose in Matthew 16, namely, that it is not a promise to always be effective.

The Church defines what papal infallibility is and how it happens

This quote is from Vat I (emphasis mine)

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
• [that is, when,
  1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  4. he possesses,
  5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable "
  The “Divine assistance” = the Holy Spirit promised to the pope in blesset Peter, by Jesus. That’s what makes a certain teaching by the pope, irreformable, (infallible) and as the definition also states, not from the consent of the Church. It’s the assistance by the HS that makes a pope’s definition irreformable when those requirements in the definition are met.
  
  I’m sure you’re already familiar with the scripture quotes (promises to Peter) from Jesus
  
  As an aside, when a pope leaves office, (Benedict XVI), he no longer has that charism of infallibility.

 

[steve_b]

Thanks for the reply.

But if we are going to allow for Christ’s promise to the local Church, namely, that what the local Church binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what the local Church looses will be loosed in heaven, to not be free from error, then how can we say that the same promise to Peter in Matt 16 is free from error?

A local Church is run by a bishop. A bishop has full authority over his local Church (diocese). That doesn’t translate into the Catholic Church teaches a local bishop who can bind and loose in his local diocese possesses the charism of infallibility.

 

[Abu]

shelby sun #33
There are very few infallibly teaching.

False.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

T**HE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by Brian W. Harrison, September-November 1992 **
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
“We have now carefully examined, word for word, the four characteristics of an *ex cathedra *definition specified in the dogmatic definition of 1870, in the light of Bishop Gasser’s authoritative explanation of the text and the subsequent teaching of Vatican Council II. We have also examined Humanae Vitae, presenting evidence that the definition in article 14 of the encyclical clearly manifests all four characteristics. We conclude, therefore, that this definition is indeed an ex cathedra proclamation - infallible and irreformable in itself.”

At Vatican I, in replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the Pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied:
“But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?”
Relatio of Bishop Gasser, in The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius Press, 2008, p 51]

 

[St_Francis]

To Abu, please review the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are very few infallibly teaching. Go to the Vatican website for more information.

There are lots of infallible teachings of the Church. It’s just that only a few are based on only an infallible declaration of the pope. An example would be the teaching that Christ is God.

 

[JRKH]

There is no distinction between local Church and universal church? Of course, in essence, the local and universal Church are the same, for Christ is all and in all.

Correct…so keep this in mind and build from there.

But when it comes to authority, the local Church and the universal Church operate on different wavelengths.

No they do not…or at least they should not. Different wavelengths implies a lack of communication.
The universal Church should be operating in communion with each other and in harmony - i.e. on the same wavelength.

In Matthew 18, the promise of binding and loosing is in action upon a human person who refuses to repent of his sin…which tells me that it is more than just a faith and morals issue.

Sin is always a matter of faith and/or morals.

Jesus is telling the Church that by “binding” this individual, they are viewing this impenitent man as a heathen or a tax collector.

Yes - and what are they using to make this judgement? Are they to use their own, natural judgement or are they to use the judgement of Christ in his Church?
If they use their own private judgement then certainly error can occur. If they use the collective judgement of the Spirit guided Church (Church teaching) then error does not occur.

This is why directly afterward, Peter asks how many times should I forgive my brother. Therefore, binding and loosing deals even with banishing someone from the congregation for not repenting and living a holy life. And the promise of binding on earth that which will be bound in heaven is even said to apply in this instance.

Correct. Peter asked Christ so that they ALL could better know how to lead the Church.
So here the person is “bound in their sin”, or removed because they will not repent of teaching error, or whatever the issue happens to be…
But again, the judgement that the Church uses to make that determination is one that is based on the universal teachings of the Church - in communion with the Holy See in Rome.

See how it all fits together?

Therefore, it would seem difficult to read infallibility into the promise of binding and loosing in Matthew 16.

It can be tricky…but the more one comes to understand the charism of infallibility as applied to the Pope and to the Church as a whole, the easier it becomes.
This is why I say that one must be patient with talking with protestants about this matter.

Hope this helps a little…I know it’s helping me.

Peace
James

P.S. I won’t be able to reply until probably Sunday…

 

[JRKH]

So the Pope has to be involved when the local Church excommunicates a fornicator? When St. Paul ordered the Corinthians to execute excommunication upon the sexually immoral man, he does not himself consult with Peter. In fact, he chastises the church of Corinth for not already excommunicating the immoral man.

But her Paul is acting upon a teaching that is long standing and clearly defined.

A bishop today need not contact Rome to excommunicate someone when all they need to do is to point to an already defined Church teaching and say - you are clearly in the wrong.
Likewise, for Paul the issue of the fornicator is not a teaching matter that needs resolved, so it does not need the direct personal involvement of Peter.

Peace
James