S
Problem with using "Binding and Loosing Powers" as an argument for Infallibility
- Status
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
There are two options you can take and remain Catholic:
- agree with yourself
- agree with me and believe there is too meanings
well I would hope so because you’re Catholic 
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
Yes.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
YEEEEAH
:extrahappy:
A
Abu
Guest
The main point is that the above is false, and nothing has been produced to support such a falsehood.
Papal infallibility is found decidedly in Sacred Scripture – it is divinely revealed – and nothing has been shown to contradict that God-given charisma clearly enunciated in post #24.
So the reality is that the Church has Christ’s Commission to St Peter alone and his successors [Mt 16:18-19], sole and supreme authority to St Peter alone and his successors (Lk 22:32; Jn 21:17), the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16), the mandate to express that mind (Mt 28:18-20), and the Holy Spirit to guide and protect (John 14:26), so that She is forever “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). What more is needed from Sacred Scripture?
Papal infallibility has been specifically taught:
Ecumenical Council Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
“CHAPTER IV.
ON THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is** a divinely-revealed dogma**: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. [22]
“But if anyone – God forbid – should presume to contradict this Our definition; let him be anathema.”
Note:
[22] i.e. in the words used by Pope Nicholas I, note 13, and in the Synod of Quedlinburg, A.D. 1085, “it is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to sit in judgment upon what it has judged.” Labbe, vol. 12, p. 679
catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.htm
A
Abu
Guest
As Tradition, that is correct.
That error would mean no possibility of explaining Christ’s foundation of His sole Church which is clear only from the written Scriptures which are the inspired Word of God and so declared, and limited by Her to specified books, to be free from all error only by His Church, and which unerringly declare that Christ gave His Church to St Peter, with delegation of that authority given to no one else. Thus it is only that Church with St Peter as Supreme Vicar, as defined by Sacred Scripture, which can define the meaning of papal infallibility as conferred by Christ on St Peter and his successors.
P
petra22
Guest
I’m sorry if this doesn’t go with the above conversation, but I got a visual of the man St. Peter without the Holy Spirit trying to lead Christ’s church… “Lord, get away from me for I am a sinful man…” he would say.
I mean St. Peter wasn’t arrogant and conceited, but chosen to be the leader in conjunction with the Holy Spirit and the twelve… Jesus’ choice…
Amen Jesus. Thy will be done in all things.
I mean St. Peter wasn’t arrogant and conceited, but chosen to be the leader in conjunction with the Holy Spirit and the twelve… Jesus’ choice…
Amen Jesus. Thy will be done in all things.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:31-32[/BIBLEDRB]
In this passage, the greek for “You” is plural, but the Greek for “thee” is singular.
The apostles as individuals are not infallible but Peter is
In this passage, the greek for “You” is plural, but the Greek for “thee” is singular.
The apostles as individuals are not infallible but Peter is
E
ezeekl
Guest
You come on here claiming to be Catholic. But are you ??? As a Catholic you would know that it matters not one wit whether Papal infallibility comes to us from Oral Tradition or from Written Traditon as both are inspired of God. But. . . as a protestant who does not believe in OralTradition as authoritive, I can see where such a differentiation can be an issue.
But like it or not Matthew 6:18,19 has always been interpreted by the church as an entrustment to Peter, as universal bishop of the church, the powers of binding and loosening. Allow me to quote some early church writers and bear in mind that while the early church was quick to denounce and anathematize those who taught error that there is no opposition to these writers. That alone speaks to the universality of the belief in papal authority. Irenaeus in 189 AD would write:
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:1–2).
But Cyprian of Carthage in 251 sums itup best when he writes:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Now, are we Catholic or are we protestant in sheep’s clothing?*
S
Sirach2
Guest
Good question. Looking at his profile and viewing the threads he has started, one might assuredly believe he is a sophisticated animal wearing “fleece.”
S
Sirach2
Guest
Tell us, then … what would YOU tell the Protestants who allegedly question you?
… that binding and loosing as a matter of infallibility is simply *oral tradition? *
Is oral tradition, therefore, a binding teaching?
If you concur that oral tradition is binding, then what’s the problem? May Catholics NOT use this scripture as proof of infallibility, in your humble opinion? Is this your argument?
J
JRKH
Guest
While I understand the concern of some here, I think it could very well be that the OP is playing devil’s advocate.Good question. Looking at his profile and viewing the threads he has started, one might assuredly believe he is a sophisticated animal wearing “fleece.”
That said, I too am interested in what tack he takes when addressing this matter.
Perhaps we can learn something very valuable.
Peace
James
S
Sirach2
Guest
It took a little searching, but I believe God Seeker is not a practicing Catholic, as evidenced through his writing style, where he stands apart from Catholics. His main argument seems to be directed at the Papacy in order to disprove its Divine Authority, based on the failure of Peter’s successors to discipline unrepentant sinners who are living immoral lives.
None of our arguments will suffice, since we have failed to address his underlying premise masked by his challenge regarding the true authority of the Papacy, in the several threads he has repeatedly initiated on this same matter.
This is the root of his unbelief in the papacy, because the Church is, in his opinion, disobeying Jesus’ command to excommunicate sinners.
None of our arguments will suffice, since we have failed to address his underlying premise masked by his challenge regarding the true authority of the Papacy, in the several threads he has repeatedly initiated on this same matter.
H
Hawkiz
Guest
I am joining this discussion late, but…you are slightly off on your statement that infallibility cannot be an affair within a local church setting. There are some things that the Roman Catholic Church DOES grant to each and every individual parish priest that DO EXIST as infallible: They are the celebration of the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation, Baptism, Matrimony, and Anointing of the sick. The Bishops of each Diocese are further granted infallibility when it comes to Confirmation and Holy Orders. Now, in matters of excommunication, which you used as an example, I may be ignorant, but I think that the local bishop is allowed to deal with these matters as well? But it is not OK to give a blanket statement claiming that local Churches do not practice infallibility.
I have seen other posts on this thread that have pointed to other Scriptures that will strengthen the argument about why infallibility exists and why it matters.
I am praying that we may all seek to unify around the Church that Christ founded!
S
Sirach2
Guest
It seems there is a bit of confusion about infallibility of a Local Ordinary, the diocesan Bishop. Let’s note well what the Church declared in its Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, Chapter III, Article 25.
Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
This is further stated in Canon Law:
Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.
S
Sirach2
Guest
One further teaching in the same Chapter of L.G., is the Divine origin of the episcopate.
If not, then they will always discover some figment of data that looks legitimate and allow themselves to be deceived and lose their simple faith. A true believer* believes *and needs no such source documentation. Faith is God’s gift!
Here are the footnotes from article 20:
(6) S. Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 44, 2; ed. Funk, I, p. 154 s.
(7) Cfr. Tertull., Praescr. Haer. 32; PL 2, 52 s.; S. Ignatius M., passim.
(8) Cfr. Tertull., Praescr. Haer. 32; PL 2, 53.
(9) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 3, 1; PG 7, 848 A; Harvey 2, 8; Sagnard, p. 100 s.:
(10) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 2, 2; PG 7, 847; Harvey 2, 7; Sagnard, p. 100: . custoditur ,., cfr. ib. IV, 26, 2; col. 1053, Harvey 2, 236, necnon IV, 33, 8; col. 1077; Harvey 2, 262.
(148) Acts 20:28
The footnotes within this document are listed at the bottom, and name the source. As we know, the Church has volumes within its archives that are not available to individuals who scour the internet for proofs to satisfy their questioning. It is purely a solemn matter of faith, that the individual either trusts the Magisterium appointed by Jesus Christ … or not.
If not, then they will always discover some figment of data that looks legitimate and allow themselves to be deceived and lose their simple faith. A true believer* believes *and needs no such source documentation. Faith is God’s gift!
Here are the footnotes from article 20:
(6) S. Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 44, 2; ed. Funk, I, p. 154 s.
(7) Cfr. Tertull., Praescr. Haer. 32; PL 2, 52 s.; S. Ignatius M., passim.
(8) Cfr. Tertull., Praescr. Haer. 32; PL 2, 53.
(9) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 3, 1; PG 7, 848 A; Harvey 2, 8; Sagnard, p. 100 s.:
(10) Cfr. S. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III, 2, 2; PG 7, 847; Harvey 2, 7; Sagnard, p. 100: . custoditur ,., cfr. ib. IV, 26, 2; col. 1053, Harvey 2, 236, necnon IV, 33, 8; col. 1077; Harvey 2, 262.
(148) Acts 20:28
E
ericc
Guest
Just saw the topic. Are we referring to 1 Cor 5 on the sexual immorality? Firstly, on the binding and loosing, I don’t remember reading Paul was given the same authority to bind/loose or was that an implied authority by reason of his apostleship although he wasn’t one of the twelve. Unless he is the resident Bishop in Corinth, wouldn’t he would be out of his “jurisdiction” to command an excommunication, if it is one? Secondly, I didn’t realise sexual immorality requires excommunication. Paul said that the sinner should be removed but does that mean excommunication? Could he be referring to denying the Eucharist to this particular sinner instead? In Matthew 18:17, the sinner should be given the opportunity to be counseled before treating him like a gentile/tax collector. But still no excommunication. Jesus did hanged out with gentiles/tax collectors. In 1 Cor 5, there is no evidence that counseling has been done yet.
My take on the loosing /binding is that Jesus gave Peter the authority to commit on his behalf. Here are the keys. Infallibility was given in Mat 16:18 where he guarantees “gates of hell shall not prevail”. They are intertwined but not exactly the same. For example, someone may give another person the authority to act on his behalf, but to the best of their abilities. Here, being divine, the Jesus can give that guarantee of infallibility due to hindsight/foresight/foreknowledge/omnipotence. But that guarantee was given to Peter only, not to the other individual apostles. Obviously, one may extend the infallibility to Peter+ Apostles by as a group by default because infallibility was given to Peter. Although individual apostles (other than Peter) appear to be authorised to commit on behalf of Jesus, Mat 18:18 did not convey the keys or infallibility guarantee.
J
JRKH
Guest
Your points are well taken, but I think that you might be trying to apply procedures that had not been fully in place yet. By this I mean whether Paul was the “resident bishop” and had authority to order an excommunication.
Excommunication means to cut off…to not commune with…it basically means the same thing as “treat as a tax collector”. It means to shun, to put out and have no dealings with. So I don’t really see the distinction you are trying to draw here.
As for counseling - true there is no evidence that it had occurred, but neither is there evidence that it had not. So we really cannot comment one way or another on that point.
Yes - I think that these are important points to bear in mind. The authority to teach infallibly is a charism of the Church in communion…and this includes the Pope. Even though Peter was given this extra authority (I prefer to call it a responsibility) the NT is pretty clear that none of the Apostles should act on their own, but in concert with each other.
This is one of the reasons I will point out to others that while the Pope has charism of infallibility, he never acts alone or precipitously. He always works in concert with his fellow bishops.
Peace
James
M
Missian_Alyssa
Guest
From a Jewish point of view, everyone who sat on the seat of Moses had the power to bind or loose someone according to the law. Thus it would not be a problem for a group like the Jewish Courts or Religious Rulers of that day to bind and loose. I guess the main point would be whom is authorized to bind and loose. How does one know they are authorized, etc.,
- Status