Prodigal's Isle

[Pax]

Pax:

I still have not quite wrapped my mind around this binding and loosing concept. Still trying to figure out just what it is. Perhaps it will help if we consider an analogy, as these, by way of comparison, often make the truth clearer to me.

It seems that binding and loosing is a matter of governing the Body of Christ. That being said, please consider with me how binding and loosing might apply to the government of the United States. In this country, there are three branches of government, each that has differing powers of binding and loosing.

• The legislative branch might be said to bind and loose by creating doctrine (or by legislating laws)
• The executive branch might be said to bind and loose by enforcing doctrine (or enforcing the legislated laws)
• The judicial branch might be said to bind and loose by interpreting doctrine (or interpreting the legislated laws)

So what i am now wondering is this: Did Peter bind and loose by creating and by enforcing and by interpreting doctrine (i.e., by all three)? Or did he bind and loose by two of the three (and by what two)? Or did he bind and loose by only one of the three (and by which one)?

Soc in Christ,

Your analogy should shed some light on the subject. The first thing that I would mention is that although the analogy is useful we need to be cautious in how far we take it. In a general sense I would say that the power to bind and loose includes all three. I would immediately wish to qualify number 1 in that I would not want the word “create” to be stretched or misconstrued. I’m not sure that defining, clarifying, and declaring doctrine is necessarily the same as “creating” doctrine. I think that the word “create” could be used in a negative way that would lead one to misunderstand the meaning. In a general sense Peter exercised all three functions. Peter did not, however, exercise the power to bind and loose in a vacuum. The other apostles also had power to bind and loose.

The first Council of Jerusalem is demonstrative of all of this in connection with your analogy of the legislative and executive aspects. The juridical aspect which was clearly part of the Old Covenant as well, can be seen clearly in Paul’s actions concerning Alexander and Hymeneus in 1 Tim 1:20. The scribes and pharisees had a juridical power in the Old Law of binding and loosing, and this is also seen in the NT Church where they had the power to banish or declare an anathema on a person as Paul did with Alexander and Hymeneus. Likewise, they would have the power to remit the anathema.

Binding and loosing would include “forbidding” or “permitting”. The fact that these things are ratified and bound or loosed in heaven is the significant part of the whole package. It would seem that the only way any of this can be accomplished and thus bound or loosed in heaven would be by way of guidance and protection by the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, none of the legislative, executive, or juridical guidance and protection in Church doctrine or governance extends to the same level of protection from sin on the part of those same leaders. The personal shortcomings and sins, no matter how serious, on the part of the leadership is an issue that is separate from the official decisions and declarations that they bind upon the flock. This is important to recognize but it makes it difficult for us to accept what they may declare to be doctrine as infallible, when they might also commit personal sin that brings scandal. Sinfulness and scandal tends to make us doubt, and can even cause us to revile the truth because of the sinfulness of the person who expressed it.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

There is a new priest hood my point is that yours is a carbon copy of the old.
I dont deny the NT church, I deny that it is structured in the same way the old was.

Well Paul like I said, an Angels message and the Lords vision along with the proof in the pudding, that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit by hearing the word is all relevant. Would you care to point out all the other instances of Angels in the NT?

If you want to believe that it was all dependent on Peter that’s is your complete right.
But you completely miss the message. The message was not Peter is the pope.
The message was that all things are in Gods hands not the hands of men. Jesus chose 12 to establish the NT church, not another Levitical line offering Jesus at the alter instead of bulls and lambs.

michaelsmth in Christ,

I do not agree with your characterization of the NT priesthood in the Catholic Church. You state this in terms that clearly do not match the facts. Likewise, I think your remarks deny a “ministerial priesthood” but of this I am not sure.

No one is making a claim that everything is dependent upon Peter. That is a straw man argument at best. No one is denying that everything is in God’s hands. What you fail to concede to our point of view is that God uses men as part of His divine plan, ministry, and governance in the Catholic Church.

Please try to relax your notion of “Levitical line” and be open minded enough to explore the idea of a ministerial priesthood in the NT Church without preconceived ideas that do not properly fit the facts.

Once again, I would suggest that you take more time to study, and to think and learn about the Eucharist as taught and presented by the Catholic Church. The Catholic position on this is quite solid and the biblical evidence in my opinion is overwhelming. I pointed to two thread links in my previous response to you concerning the Eucharist. I once again recommend that you read them because the subject is thoroughly discussed with every possible objection addressed. You would if nothing else, get a much better understanding of scripture on this matter and why the Catholic Church has taught that the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ ever since the day of Pentecost.

God bless.

 

[michaelsmth626]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...pg/300px-Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg

Well, Michael, i open to hearing what you have to say to show that (1) is not true. I mean, if i’m setting myself up for a train wreck, please tell me why!

I do admire Peter If nothing else Peter is a great example of of all Christians growing in the knowledge and faith of Christ. Some Catholics here have a conservative view of Peters authority understanding that that Peter does not operate in a vacuum but is lead by Christ. Others indicate a liberal open ended type of power that encompasses every aspect of God IE forgiving sins, establishing doctrine and judging men. If you will this picture takes the shape of an hour glass. Jesus as He was with the Apostles is at the point that sand flows from heaven above to the Earth below the door if you will. Catholic propose that as Jesus accented to the Father that this position, the apex point between the upper and lower chamber is occupied by Peter and his elected successors. This visual indicates that the door is now occupied by Peters successors. You can see that the placement of catholics single vicar of Christ that nothing can pass from heaven to earth or visa versa without passing threw the pope. It smacks of the verse Jesus said about the Priest of the old temple. The Levitical priest hood held this position because it was the way the LORD worked threw the OT it is the old covenant. They did not accept or allow Jesus to officially receive this apex position that was rightfully His.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

This is, was the shadow of the things to come. Jesus holds that apex point forever and to make perfect this new covenant the Holy Spirit now has access from the Father threw Jesus to all men on earth. Jesus is the only mediator between Heaven and Earth. If you place any thing else in this apex position you have denied Jesus His rightful position. Now as the sands “small stones” flowed threw, the 12 Apostles were the first pass threw the apex “Jesus” laying the foundation in the bottom of the hour glass. And upon them the sands “other living stones” that received the HS were being built upon them. The pile of sand is being built up to this very day in the same fashion. The stone the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone. Laying the foundation and building the church, a new priest hood in which He is the high Priest governing every living stone one upon another. What kind of shape does this visual make? The sands falling threw takes the shape of a pyramid. The chief corner stone is the apex of a pyramid not a corner stone of a building. Jesus is the chief corner stone the apex of the hour glass. I do have more to say but it useless to go further until this concept is accepted.
http://www.grg.org/images/HourGlass.../albums/af77/michaelsmth626/Pyramidedit-2.jpg

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth in Christ,

I do not agree with your characterization of the NT priesthood in the Catholic Church. You state this in terms that clearly do not match the facts. Likewise, I think your remarks deny a “ministerial priesthood” but of this I am not sure.

No one is making a claim that everything is dependent upon Peter. That is a straw man argument at best. No one is denying that everything is in God’s hands. What you fail to concede to our point of view is that God uses men as part of His divine plan, ministry, and governance in the Catholic Church.

Please try to relax your notion of “Levitical line” and be open minded enough to explore the idea of a ministerial priesthood in the NT Church without preconceived ideas that do not properly fit the facts.

Once again, I would suggest that you take more time to study, and to think and learn about the Eucharist as taught and presented by the Catholic Church. The Catholic position on this is quite solid and the biblical evidence in my opinion is overwhelming. I pointed to two thread links in my previous response to you concerning the Eucharist. I once again recommend that you read them because the subject is thoroughly discussed with every possible objection addressed. You would if nothing else, get a much better understanding of scripture on this matter and why the Catholic Church has taught that the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ ever since the day of Pentecost.

God bless.

In this Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of his sheep and his lambs, has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls. He is endowed with the primacy of power over all the churches (Vatican Council II, Volume 1, The Conciliar and the Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P.).

 

[Pax]

In this Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of his sheep and his lambs, has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls. He is endowed with the primacy of power over all the churches (Vatican Council II, Volume 1, The Conciliar and the Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P.).

That is correct, but please…make no attempt to misconstrue it as you obviously have in your previous post.

 

[Pax]

I do admire Peter If nothing else Peter is a great example of of all Christians growing in the knowledge and faith of Christ. Some Catholics here have a conservative view of Peters authority understanding that that Peter does not operate in a vacuum but is lead by Christ. Others indicate a liberal open ended type of power that encompasses every aspect of God IE forgiving sins, establishing doctrine and judging men. If you will this picture takes the shape of an hour glass. Jesus as He was with the Apostles is at the point that sand flows from heaven above to the Earth below the door if you will. Catholic propose that as Jesus accented to the Father that this position, the apex point between the upper and lower chamber is occupied by Peter and his elected successors. This visual indicates that the door is now occupied by Peters successors. You can see that the placement of catholics single vicar of Christ that nothing can pass from heaven to earth or visa versa without passing threw the pope. It smacks of the verse Jesus said about the Priest of the old temple. The Levitical priest hood held this position because it was the way the LORD worked threw the OT it is the old covenant. They did not accept or allow Jesus to officially receive this apex position that was rightfully His.

This is, was the shadow of the things to come. Jesus holds that apex point forever and to make perfect this new covenant the Holy Spirit now has access from the Father threw Jesus to all men on earth. Jesus is the only mediator between Heaven and Earth. If you place any thing else in this apex position you have denied Jesus His rightful position. Now as the sands “small stones” flowed threw, the 12 Apostles were the first pass threw the apex “Jesus” laying the foundation in the bottom of the hour glass. And upon them the sands “other living stones” that received the HS were being built upon them. The pile of sand is being built up to this very day in the same fashion. The stone the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone. Laying the foundation and building the church, a new priest hood in which He is the high Priest governing every living stone one upon another. What kind of shape does this visual make? The sands falling threw takes the shape of a pyramid. The chief corner stone is the apex of a pyramid not a corner stone of a building. Jesus is the chief corner stone the apex of the hour glass. I do have more to say but it useless to go further until this concept is accepted.
http://www.grg.org/images/HourGlass.../albums/af77/michaelsmth626/Pyramidedit-2.jpg

michaelsmth in Christ,

You are entitled to you opinions, but your views are those of someone that IMHO does not properly understand or articulate what Catholics actually believe.

Your hour glass analogy might have some application for your view of things because your view is not congruent with what the Catholic Church really is. It does not have any application whatsoever to what the Catholic Church actually is or what she actually teaches.

Likewise, your mentioning Christ as the “one mediator” either shows that you misunderstand the Catholic view of the ministerial priesthood, or what scripture means by Jesus as the “one mediator”, or you misunderstand both. I believe it would be profitable for you to explore the NT ministerial priesthood first, before you add additional layers and contentions. That is just a suggestion on my part.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

michaelsmth in Christ,

You might want to go to following link to get a start on the NT priesthood:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp

 

[michaelsmth626]

You appear to have a lot to say, Michael. I’m willing to listen, if you’ll only take the time.

You are a smart man just use the principles that I have outlined.
Timing and the sequence of events is critical to the proper understanding of scripture.
As some continue to support baptism as the method used in the NT I don’t deny it in the proper context. When Jesus was still walking with the Apostles on earth baptism was the outward sign of accepting Jesus, for the Jews alone. The HS had not even bin given to the Apostles, why because they had Jesus right their in front of them to lead and teach. He had already chosen them. Johns statement to Jesus I am in need of being baptized by you. John knew Him and His mission to establish the pathway, gateway that he and all the patriarchs would pass threw to heaven. That path was not establish until Jesus over came death, “And her Child was caught up to God and His throne”. resurrected. John paints a picture of the events in heaven at this moment in Rev 12. After He ascended we read this,

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
Who else can this be but the Apostles?

Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down.
When did this take place? At the setting of the King Of Kings.
The door had been established salvation was available to all those that slept “were dead” no longer could death threw sin hold the captives. The atonement for all men had been given but were not done. their is still the living. For the living we now have what John TB was desiring from Jesus, to be baptized by Him in the HS. John did get to drink from this well it had not yet come. He functioned under the hand of God as did the patriarchs had. I know that their is a distinct difference between the 2. John says it himself, that he is in need of the greater perfect new covenant to be baptized by Jesus. No one that was baptized in the gospel accounts had received the HS they were being made ready for the coming of the HS. Look at John he was the first to recognize the Lord and his testimony “behold the lamb of God” proceeded Peters revelation by miles. In that event we have testimony from Heaven and earth, The Father and John testified to to Jesus. When Jesus asked them who do you say that I am. Jesus was fishing, testing looking for testimony not from His lips but from the lips of another. He rejoiced in that confession outlining what is included in that confession not just for Peter but to all that receive Him. The testimony of the 12 is the foundation that all others rise from. Those that have been trained and are mature in the Spirit confess to this. We carry on the same gift that was given to Peter and the 12, the power in the HS to properly handle the word of God, that is the power to bind and lose, to set the captives free threw the testimony of Jesus Christ, the testimony layed down by the 12.

As the wedding feast was underway the Jews ate first receiving the HS threw first the Apostles then it went to all the Jews whom had been baptized. This wedding feast continued until the time of the Jews had been fulfilled, the 70 weeks. Now that Jesus had served the messengers of Gods plan and caretakers of His word, it was time to allow the other guest to enter. As depicted in Acts 10. The announcement was made to the guest wanting outside by an Angel, just as the announcement of the coming of Jesus was made to the Jews. Peter was chosen to follow the Angel from the banquet to the porch, to speak the words and those that heard and believed were clothed in the HS and entered in. End of Story.

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth in Christ,

You might want to go to following link to get a start on the NT priesthood:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp

If you would, could you just summarize it in your own words, I’ll be quite honest I have read many statements from the CC, they put me to sleep or are worded in such a way that I would have to hire a layer to translate them for me. I will trust your capability to convey the meaning.

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth in Christ,

You are entitled to you opinions, but your views are those of someone that IMHO does not properly understand or articulate what Catholics actually believe.

Your hour glass analogy might have some application for your view of things because your view is not congruent with what the Catholic Church really is. It does not have any application whatsoever to what the Catholic Church actually is or what she actually teaches.

Likewise, your mentioning Christ as the “one mediator” either shows that you misunderstand the Catholic view of the ministerial priesthood, or what scripture means by Jesus as the “one mediator”, or you misunderstand both. I believe it would be profitable for you to explore the NT ministerial priesthood first, before you add additional layers and contentions. That is just a suggestion on my part.

God bless.

Just what part of this statement am I misunderstanding? It seems pretty clear that the pope is the apex of the hour glass.

In this Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of his sheep and his lambs, has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls. He is endowed with the primacy of power over all the churches (Vatican Council II, Volume 1, The Conciliar and the Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P.).

I find it unnecessary to include all the statements made to the same effect made since the late 1400s.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hmm. I think your “ignorance” may have helped me to discover my own.

let me look at what I wrote and insert comments (in blue):

“Leap of faith”: This definitely sounds a bit cliche. I don’t know if this was my original meaning/ intent, but allow me to use an analogy (modified out of poor memory and to fit the OP) that was passed along to me by a wise Protestant. It seems that in order to get off of this island you are going to have to get in a boat (or, walk across a bridge) At this point, it looks like 2 different vessels are being offered to escort you off the island. You are trying to believe that one of the vessels is trustworthy. Once you come to belief, one has to take “a leap of faith” to get off the island; that is one has to actually get in a boat. Back to the analogy of my wise friend, I can say I believe something but when asked to get in the boat (in this case say a flood is coming and you need to be saved.) In this case I will the original analogy: The flood is the wrath of God and the boat is captained by Christ. One can say, “Lord, I believe that this boat will get me off of the island.” Perhaps, the Lord might respond, “Well then, get in!” The one in danger says “oh no, I’m not getting in that boat.” Faith get’s in the boat ( to paraphrase my friend.) Therefore, I believe that the “leap of faith” might be the actual jumping aboard. Now, you are not trying to turn to God here, so I used that analogy as the leap of faith–I will say in passing that Protestants and Catholics would differ on the process one takes (normally) to jump on the boat (and how to stay in-or if it is possible to go overboard). Anyway, you have a couple of boats (Protestantism and Catholicism) offered to get off of your little island, but there seems (from my flawed human perspective) to be no storm in sight as you’re just trying to better follow God. So, there is just Soc4Jesus confused about how to get off of the island. I guess, the “leap of faith” would be the actual “leaping” on to 1 of the boats. I’m saying ultimately , it will take that to get off the island. But, I trust that you’ll make it when the timing is right and I don’t want to pressure you .

Peace,

Nick

So you would think it best for me to stop asking whether the USS Catholic is seaworthy, or whether the USS Protestant will sink, and just assume that both are safe for the trip? Well, i have to choose one or the other, as i cannot make the trip on both! So how should i decide which to choose? Shall i flip a coin, or shall i draw straws as Peter did?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

Your analogy should shed some light on the subject. The first thing that I would mention is that although the analogy is useful we need to be cautious in how far we take it. In a general sense I would say that the power to bind and loose includes all three. I would immediately wish to qualify number 1 in that I would not want the word “create” to be stretched or misconstrued. I’m not sure that defining, clarifying, and declaring doctrine is necessarily the same as “creating” doctrine. I think that the word “create” could be used in a negative way that would lead one to misunderstand the meaning. In a general sense Peter exercised all three functions. Peter did not, however, exercise the power to bind and loose in a vacuum. The other apostles also had power to bind and loose. …

But now i’m confused! Other Catholics have gone to great lengths to convince me that when Jesus said this
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

our Lord was giving Peter, and Peter ***alone ***such authority. Thus, he had authority over the others, for only he could bind and loose. Now are you saying that i’ve been led to believe a lie? Please help me resolve this apparent contradiction.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… The first Council of Jerusalem is demonstrative of all of this in connection with your analogy of the legislative and executive aspects. The juridical aspect which was clearly part of the Old Covenant as well, can be seen clearly in Paul’s actions concerning Alexander and Hymeneus in 1 Tim 1:20. The scribes and pharisees had a juridical power in the Old Law of binding and loosing, and this is also seen in the NT Church where they had the power to banish or declare an anathema on a person as Paul did with Alexander and Hymeneus. Likewise, they would have the power to remit the anathema. …

Yes, and i’d add that if Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians are not creating (or more accurately conveying) the will of God in regard to new doctrine, i don’t know what is!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Binding and loosing would include “forbidding” or “permitting”. The fact that these things are ratified and bound or loosed in heaven is the significant part of the whole package. It would seem that the only way any of this can be accomplished and thus bound or loosed in heaven would be by way of guidance and protection by the Holy Spirit. …

Agreed!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Unfortunately, none of the legislative, executive, or juridical guidance and protection in Church doctrine or governance extends to the same level of protection from sin on the part of those same leaders. The personal shortcomings and sins, no matter how serious, on the part of the leadership is an issue that is separate from the official decisions and declarations that they bind upon the flock. This is important to recognize but it makes it difficult for us to accept what they may declare to be doctrine as infallible, when they might also commit personal sin that brings scandal. Sinfulness and scandal tends to make us doubt, and can even cause us to revile the truth because of the sinfulness of the person who expressed it.

God bless.

So are you saying that when Peter sinned, after receiving the authority from Christ to bind and loose, that his sins were never sins of ignorance? For if his knowledge of right and wrong was perfect, then every sin that he committed was one of willful rebellion, and not ignorance, it think.

I can see then we have two important questions to consider:

1. 
   *]**Peter’s authority. **Was the power to bind an loose given to him alone, or to all Apostles?
   *]Peter’s perfection. Was he perfect in knowledge but not in obedience so that whenever he sinned, he was never deceived into thinking he was not sinning?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Let me try to explain using your analogy.

The Pope never operates as the legislative branch in terms of doctrine. All doctrines came from Jesus and the Pope merely teaches what he has heard from his predecessors in this regard. …

http://www.thisnation.com/media/photos/signingdec.jpg

Yes, Paul. And i believe the more religious of the Founding Fathers of the United Stats of America would say the same: They never create laws; they convey the laws that God requires.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, but i find that the same God who chose David as His king over his people also chose Saul. The contrast between the two men is like day and night. How do you know, then, that a successor of a successor of a successor is guaranteed to be a David and not a Saul? How do you know that such an Apostle, many times removed, will always be a Peter and not a Judas?

Dear Soc,

we are not speaking here about the behavioural dimension of the popes throughout history. That has much to do with their formidable responsibilities before the Lord, not with their prerogatives. David respects Saul’s status himself, BTW.

Rather, what matters here for us is that, or whether if you prefer, Jesus’ flock is protected from being led astray from His Revelation by the Institution Jesus Himself has built.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… The Pope absolutely operates as the Judicial branch, interpreting the truths for the people. …

Excuse my ignorance of Catholic Church governance, but isn’t true that there are times when the cardinals (rather than the Pope) decide as a group how to interpret doctrine? The Council of Trent comes to mind.

 

[pneuma07]

Perhaps, but i’m not yet convinced. When Jesus said this"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

(Matthew 16:19)

you made a convincing argument that Christ was speaking to Peter alone and ***not ***to the other Apostles. Reason was on your side, for the context of the passage made it clear that what you said is true.

Now you appear to be contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that these words of our Lord apply not only to Peter but to all Apostolic Successors, as well! So please tell me. Which interpretation of Matthew 16:19 am i to believe–your former or you later?

Not sure I grasp the question correctly, or whether I was interpreting Matthew 16.19 with
*You could answer we are starting from Jesus here, not just a friend of ours. If Peter and fellows established successors, and the principle of succession, and if you trust Peter as acting according to Jesus’ will, that means the idea does work. In other words, this is the way in the divine design to guard the deposit of the faith under the assistance of the Holy Spirit. *

An excursus about succession could be anyway useful.
We say the bishop of Rome is successor of Peter. The college of the bishops is collective successor of the college of the apostles. Both the Pope and the college with him are considered organs of the infallibility of the Church. Has anybody ever forgotten Matthew 18.18 BTW ?

If you prefer we can focus now just on Peter and his successors.
In Matthew 16 we have Peter appointed prime minister of the eternal King. Or the promise of this appointment, that we can see fulfilled in John 21. This is unique to Peter. I understand we are already together on this one.

Now, the prime minister of the eternal King is an office, does not look like an ad hoc temporary task *a la *OT judges. Feeding Jesus’ flock is a permanent task, I’d say. The papacy is just the idea that this task, the prime minister who feeds and strengthens the brothers, is not needed in one generation only.

I hope this point sounds reasonable. Tell me please, whether I created again confusion.

 

[pneuma07]

I’d like to have the same confidence you have and be certain either that i can, or cannot, trust them.

Stating, as kindly requested, my beliefs on the matter, I’m aware it would be overwhelmingly optimistic of me to expect you to swallow that all at present.

I do hope on this foundation

i should trust Peter (flaws and all) because Jesus chose him to speak for Him. If i trust Jesus, i must obviously trust those He trusted.

and the principle

I should trust those trusted by those I trust

you can build your trust in the authority of the Catholic Church

In Christ
P7