P
Problem with using "Binding and Loosing Powers" as an argument for Infallibility
- Status
S
shelby_sun
Guest
OK the Church only formally declares a few teachings infallible. Why not all those others> Maybe if they did it would be clearer for people. Isn’t because it is to be based on faith?
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
None of this is relevant to the question.
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Are you sure that’s true? What about Antioch? Alexandria? Athens? The Holy Land’s churches?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
In Matthew 18:18 he was talking to all the apostles as a whole. The Bishops succeed them.
So Matthew 18:18 means the college of Bishops are infallible, not individual Bishops. In Matthew 18:18 no individuals were singled out.
By this I mean, the college of Bishops united to its head the Roman Pontiff, who in Matthew 16:18-19 is given the keys, and the keys are necessary to exercise the binding and loosing authority. Therefore the college of Bishops must be in full communion with Peter to bind and loose, this is the MAGISTERIUM. 18:18 authority must be exercised under the unique authority in 16:18-19.
Matthew 16:18-19 - Papal Infallibility.
Matthew 18:18 - Magisterium Infalliblty
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Some other Churches were founded by apostles, they are A apostolic see rather than THE apostolic see, Rome is THE apostolic see. That’s because Peter has the keys which are the supremacy of the Church.
Yes peter found some other Churches too, and was Bishop at them places for a while, but the final place he was Bishop at was Rome, when he moved to Rome from the previous places, his supreme authority moved with him, he did not leave it behind obviously. Then he died in Rome, so logically speaking, the next Bishop of Rome and next etc etc so forth has the Supreme authority of Peter, the keys invested into the Episcopal chair of Rome
S
steve_b
Guest
just in case there is some misunderstanding
Check these out
- catholic.com/quickquestions/apart-from-abortion-are-there-other-sins-that-incur-automatic-excommunication
- from the Catechism ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=excommunication&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
- Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
S
shelby_sun
Guest
Yes, and what happen when people started to evangelize, they started to judge other more than teach others. We have become what the Southern Baptist used to be. My husband, who was raised SB, and converted after we got married has been very upset at where the Church has gotten under JPII and Pope Benedict. I truly feel like the leaders of the Church (thank God) saw the desperate need for a Pope like Pope Francis so that we start focusing on our own sins and start to focus on forgiving other instead of pointing all the reasons they are going to hell.
Too many times on this forum I read comments that sound so protestant to me only to find out is someone claiming to be a devote Catholic. Maybe that is because I was raised with The Jesuit and we never, never focused on the sins of other, but rather on God’s forgiving grace. I feel sorry for the people that focus on others sins.
S
St_Francis
Guest
As a general rule, the Church only declares when there is a question or even contention about a subject.
I am not sure what you are referring to here…
Isn’t because it is to be based on faith?
Ummm, it’s hard to tell what you mean by this. We constantly take things on faith, like when our oven stopped working and the man came to fix it, we took it on faith that what he said was wrong was what was wrong with it. The man had a license which indicated that he had studied stuff like that, so it was easy for us to take what he said “on faith.”
With the Church, Christ Himself gave authority, and the promise that the Holy Spirit would protect Church teachings in matters of faith and morals. So we can take Church teachings on faith pretty easily, no?
We need to take certain truths on faith anyway–revealed truths. The Triune nature of God, for example, is not something we could figure out by logic. But the acceptance of Church teaching should be based on reason, not *blind *faith. We should be prepared to give a reason for our faith, as St Peter said.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Who is The Jesuit you were raised with?
Well, you know that individuals can go overboard in one direction or another, but that says nothing about the teachings of the Church.
OTOH, the Church is supposed to teach, and one important aspect of that is to teach what is sin, so that people can avoid or confess when they step over the boundary. So we cannot ignore teaching about sin altogether.
I am not sure what sort of problem you might be talking about with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, so maybe I am not addressing your concerns?
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
So the whole college of Bishops excommunicates a fornicator?? (1 Cor 5:1-13)
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Hello
Matthew 18:18 has two meanings. The first meaning is what I discussed before, and you can not work it out by looking at the context. That was about the Church binding things universally on everyone eg… teachings. The reference to “Earth” implying Universal. What is bound on earth(universally) is bound in heaven.
The second meaning is excommunication and forgiveness in confession etc… which is not infallible as you know, that can be done by local Bishops. BUT if a person is unjustly excommunicated there is a highest authority in the Church. He can appeal then to the next level etc… By saying “if he will not hear the Church” he must mean a Church which has different levels of trials which is why he said the instead of a or his or her Church.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Matthew 16:18-19 also has them two meanings.
The Roman Pontiff can: bind the faithful universally which is infallible.
And
Ex-communicate and forgive sins etc…
There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of theRoman Pontiff because the authority in 16:18-19 is higher than the authority in 18:18 and the highest authority in the Church instituted by Christ
The Roman Pontiff can: bind the faithful universally which is infallible.
And
Ex-communicate and forgive sins etc…
There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of theRoman Pontiff because the authority in 16:18-19 is higher than the authority in 18:18 and the highest authority in the Church instituted by Christ
A
Abu
Guest
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).
A
Abu
Guest
Such a fantasy – that St John Paul II perverted the Church’s mission from Christ – indicates a need for reflection and the understanding of what the Church really teaches.
There is a great need to understand Christ’s teaching on judging. Unfortunately judging what is truth is often neglected without an iota of understanding that it is a major misrepresentation of the teaching of Christ who mandates the need to judge everything. Hence the virtual acceptance of error and the promulgation of error in faith and morals.
We may not judge motives, intentions, and guilt before God but we are commanded by Christ Himself to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.
The rule from Christ is:
“Judge not that you be not judged.” (Mt 7:1)
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).
“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).
Since I was schooled by great English Jesuit priests, the essentials of truth and error were imbibed and the great need for offering truth, as well as mercy, absorbed.
That is the Catholic way. That is the gigantic theme of both St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
There is nothing in the text which suggests a doubt meaning. Rather, Jesus shows that in both cases, whether Peter of the local Church, the promise of binding and loosing are the same. You are inserting two meanings here.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
If you don’t agree I misunderstand your profile which says “Roman Catholic” at the top. She the Church is the infallible interpreter of Sacred Scripture and she understand that she can ex-communicate and forgive sins and make teachings.
What suggests these different meanings in Matthew 18:18 is:
- the context (suggesting the local church meaning of ex-communicating etc…)
- the word earth (suggesting universal binding and loosing)
Also the close relation between the keys and the power to bind and loose in Matthew 16:18-19 shows the binding and loosing authority must be operated under the keys. Do you not think the keys are necessary to bind and loose??? If so you will conclude they must be in communion with Peter to exercise this power
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
There are two possibilities:
- Peter can do whatever he wants and Heaven has to go along with it.
- Peter can only declare what is already true in heaven.
Each of the apostles was individually infallible. Their successors, the Bishops are not individually infallible; they can teach infallibly provided that they are in full union with the Pope.
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
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.
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.
- Status