Your input needed!!! - Binding and Loosening

[Nella]

it had to do with politics more then anything else.

That most certainly could be said for why Henry’s annulment was denied by Clement.

 

[jabelltulsa]

We believe that over time, the church being run by men had gone astray. Many priests, bishops and popes were pedophiles, fornicators and rapists.

Nella, please list your sources on these accusations. I believe this is scandalous, so I would like to know where you got this information.

 

[richwmiller]

You are just sprewing venom. [spewing] I asked a fair and honest question and I get attacked for it.

Sorry you think so.
Just for the record your question was/is an attack with nothing to back it up. It is not a fair and honest question but a loaded question.
No venom intended.
Just history and the truth. Show me where I am wrong.
You made the statement that Catholics were evil and un biblical
You made some very strong accusations about the Catholic Church such as the clergy are rapists and fornicators.
Let’s for the moment say that is true. Is the Anglican church any better?
You say that the church does things that are un biblical.Name one.
Not one thing the church does isn’t based on the bible. You may not like our interpretation of the bible. Not everything the church does is to be found in its developed form but neither is the rosary nor is the trinity.

We maintain that the church is the interpreter of the bible.

 

[Petergee]

Your logic is mind boggling which could probably explain your demeanor.

When your mind is finished boggling perhaps you could wrap it around the historical facts and see that your accusations are groundless.

btw if this had been the reason for the Anglican split, it didn’t work. Just restricting ourselves to the heads of the Anglican church, there have been numerous fornicators and adulterers and at least one sodomiser and rapist among your supreme leaders.
Not to mention that it was the Anglican church in 1930 which notoriously became the first denomination ever to endorse contraception, initiating the downhill slide to the cultural revolution where fornication and sodomy are widely accepted, and even “blessed” by Anglican clergy.

 

[FatBoy]

…(The Anglican Church) believe(s) in the body and blood of Christ…QUOTE]

Would you bow down and worship that “bread” and “wine” used during your communion?

 

[NotWorthy]

Do you consider voicing my disagreements with you church disrespectful?? If you do, then what you do to me is just as disrespectful.

So be it.

What I said is simply, you claim to be run-of-the-mill protestant. I claim that most run-of-the-mill protestants don’t declare that our Popes are rapists, pedophiles, (no one denies that a few were fornicators).

They may think it, and that’s their right and their prerogative. But they certainly don’t come and tell me that.

 

[NotWorthy]

How about the comparison of the Greek words Petros and Petras. Very big difference there.

Other than the fact that Jesus didn’t utter the words Petra and Petros (He used the word Kepha - with no feminine/masculine differences), could you please enlighten us in the differences.

And if you plan to tell us the big rock/ little pebble scenario, please tell us if it came back into Greek Grammar usage during the Apostolic Times. I understand that it had gone by the way-side long before Jesus’ birth. The Greeks used the word “Lithos” for small pebble, as is demonstrated 17 times in the NT (these numbers are of the top of my head, so you are welcome to correct them).

I especially liked the Apologist who claimed the big rock/little pebble usage had returned (An “Encore” so to speak) for about 50 years in the first century, and then drifted out of usage again. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to reconcile yourself with that belief.

 

[mozart-250]

I can’t say that I fully understand what my brothers and sisters in Christ of the protestant denominations make of the passages in the Sacred Scripture that speak of Peter being given the Keys, and Peter (and the apostles later) being given the power to bind and loosen (specifically Matt. 16:19)

Please share with me your understanding of these passages, and feel free to give examples as well.

I do not intend for this thread to be a debate, but merely a sharing of protestant beliefs on the subject.

As I grow in my faith, I feel compelled to understand the faiths of others, so your (name removed by moderator)ut is greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance, and God Bless you.

Hello:
Having read the article by James Akin, the only point where I know that I disagree is where he gets into infallability. Whatever binding and loosing means, I see nothing from either Matthew 16 or Isaiah to indicate that the inability to be wrong in teaching on faith and morals is included in it.

Other than that, the big issue in my mind is whether Jesus designed one centralized church with one overall leader when he designed this institution called the church. I haven’t seen this formally debated out so I don’t know for sure, but at least to me you can make a good case that He did. That would mean the church as we see it today is outside of Christ’s design.

However even He did, it does not necessarily follow that His church would consist only of one faction in the case when His church divides upon itself, leaving the remaining factions outside the fold so to speak. Scripture is quite undefined how God would react in that case.

And although you didn’t ask, I believe that “gates of hell will not prevail against it” is indicative of the final status of the church when Jesus returns. I do not believe this means that in the meantime that the church can not drift quite far from what Christ had in mind when He designed the church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hello:
Having read the article by James Akin, the only point where I know that I disagree is where he gets into infallability. Whatever binding and loosing means, I see nothing from either Matthew 16 or Isaiah to indicate that the inability to be wrong in teaching on faith and morals is included in it.

Two points on this:
In John, we read, “He who hears you, Hears Me”. The Apostles (and the following Church), when they teach, are speaking for Jesus. Could they teach wrong in this case?

Also, if the Church teaches something false (i.e. You MUST get baptized to gain Salvation), and this leads people to think they are saved when they are not, wouldn’t that mean the gates of hell have prevailed?

Other than that, the big issue in my mind is whether Jesus designed one centralized church with one overall leader when he designed this institution called the church. I haven’t seen this formally debated out so I don’t know for sure, but at least to me you can make a good case that He did. That would mean the church as we see it today is outside of Christ’s design.

How do you come to this conclusion. As a child grows into a man, that child is the exact same person, just at a different stage of growth. Isn’t the Church a living entity? Shouldn’t it be able to change as times dictate? For example, a Church under Roman persecution shouldn’t have to look the same once it’s accepted by “Civil Authorities”.

Doesn’t Jesus say “The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed”?

However even He did, it does not necessarily follow that His church would consist only of one faction in the case when His church divides upon itself, leaving the remaining factions outside the fold so to speak. Scripture is quite undefined how God would react in that case.

If there is only ONE Truth, then how can there are many Churches teaching many truths.?

And although you didn’t ask, I believe that “gates of hell will not prevail against it” is indicative of the final status of the church when Jesus returns. I do not believe this means that in the meantime that the church can not drift quite far from what Christ had in mind when He designed the church.

And what did you think Christ had in mind when He built His Church?

 

[richwmiller]

Hello:
Having read the article by James Akin, the only point where I know that I disagree is where he gets into infallibility. Whatever binding and loosing means, I see nothing from either Matthew 16 or Isaiah to indicate that the inability to be wrong in teaching on faith and morals is included in it.

Other than that, the big issue in my mind is whether Jesus designed one centralized church with one overall leader when he designed this institution called the church. I haven’t seen this formally debated out so I don’t know for sure, but at least to me you can make a good case that He did. That would mean the church as we see it today is outside of Christ’s design.

However even He did, it does not necessarily follow that His church would consist only of one faction in the case when His church divides upon itself, leaving the remaining factions outside the fold so to speak. Scripture is quite undefined how God would react in that case.

And although you didn’t ask, I believe that “gates of hell will not prevail against it” is indicative of the final status of the church when Jesus returns. I do not believe this means that in the meantime that the church can not drift quite far from what Christ had in mind when He designed the church.

On the contrary the Scriptures tell us what to do when someone is in error. Talk to them, bring others to talk to them, and if they won’t listen to the church cast them out.

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. How can the pillar drift a little?

If the church drifted a little that would be the gates of hell prevailing and would cause the church to collapse. There can be no drifting because Christ is the rock of foundation and the cornerstone. On that rock of Jesus is the rock of Peter.

 

[mozart-250]

Two points on this:
In John, we read, “He who hears you, Hears Me”. The Apostles (and the following Church), when they teach, are speaking for Jesus. Could they teach wrong in this case?

It does not necessarily follow that the the object “you” here is incapable of being incorrect.

As with any promise in the Word of God, there are implicit and explicit conditions and restrictions around it. Otherwise the Bible could be open to rather nonsensical interpretations. (For example if this is totally unconditional then whoever hears an apostle say “I gotta use the men’s room” is hearing Christ)

I have always felt that an implicit condition/restriction on this scripture is “As long as Jesus is speaking through you”, then whomever hears you hears Me.

Also, if the Church teaches something false (i.e. You MUST get baptized to gain Salvation), and this leads people to think they are saved when they are not, wouldn’t that mean the gates of hell have prevailed?

The verb prevail is indicative of a final status in normal English usage. There is nothing in that scripture that says that in the meantime the gates of hell can’t gain a foothold into the church.

We are not at the end of the age. We have no idea what God might do between now and then to fix whatever messes we have made of his design.

How do you come to this conclusion. As a child grows into a man, that child is the exact same person, just at a different stage of growth. Isn’t the Church a living entity? Shouldn’t it be able to change as times dictate? For example, a Church under Roman persecution shouldn’t have to look the same once it’s accepted by “Civil Authorities”.

Doesn’t Jesus say “The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed”?

Simple logic. If it is true that Jesus designed a centrally organized church and today the church is divided into a gazillion independent organizations, then what we see today is outisde of what Christ designed.

If there is only ONE Truth, then how can there are many Churches teaching many truths.?

Divisions have consequences. Maybe now nobody has it absolutely 100% correct.

And what did you think Christ had in mind when He built His Church?

Hmm. I lean towards the opinion that Jesus did design a centralized church. It certainly developed that way. I could change my mind here, but it would have to be a very good argument to get me to do so.

That logically means that what we see today is outside of God’s design.

But that does not mean that today one faction is the Church of Jesus Christ and the remaining factions are somehow inferior.

 

[mozart-250]

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. How can the pillar drift a little?

Well one way would be for it (the church) to become arrogant and start assuming that because we (the church) are “the pillar and foundation of truth” that we no longer need and are no longer relying upon the power of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit to guide us and to lead us into the truth.

I personally believe for example in response to such an arrogant attitude that the promises of Christ in regards to His church temporarily become null and void and that He will let the church drift until it repents and returns to Christ.

That applies to any body of Christian, Catholic or Protestant.

If the church drifted a little that would be the gates of hell prevailing and would cause the church to collapse. There can be no drifting because Christ is the rock of foundation and the cornerstone. On that rock of Jesus is the rock of Peter.

Not necessarily. “Gates of hell prevailing” is indicative of a final status. Jesus is perfectly able to fix whatever messes us humans make of what He designed.

 

[NotWorthy]

It does not necessarily follow that the the object “you” here is incapable of being incorrect.

As with any promise in the Word of God, there are implicit and explicit conditions and restrictions around it. Otherwise the Bible could be open to rather nonsensical interpretations. (For example if this is totally unconditional then whoever hears an apostle say “I gotta use the men’s room” is hearing Christ)

I have always felt that an implicit condition/restriction on this scripture is “As long as Jesus is speaking through you”, then whomever hears you hears Me.

Good point.

What the Church has taught since Her infancy is that when Jesus is talking to just the Apostles, then He’s talking of Church doctrines. When Jesus is teaching to the crowds, He is talking of our Salvation.

It stands to reason that Jesus would want the Shepherds to be as well grounded as possible on teaching the Faithful on their Salvation.

The verb prevail is indicative of a final status in normal English usage. There is nothing in that scripture that says that in the meantime the gates of hell can’t gain a foothold into the church.

If I teach someone something that leads them away from Salvation (i.e. Abortion is a woman’s right, Contraception is OK…), then I am teaching something contrary to Christ’s teaching. Then the gates of hell have prevailed.

We are not at the end of the age. We have no idea what God might do between now and then to fix whatever messes we have made of his design.

Ok…

Simple logic. If it is true that Jesus designed a centrally organized church and today the church is divided into a gazillion independent organizations, then what we see today is outisde of what Christ designed.

But Christ created A CHURCH. For centuries, there was A CHURCH. St. Paul was clear that Christ and His Church were like a Groom and a Bride. There is ONE CHURCH according to Scripture.

Divisions have consequences. Maybe now nobody has it absolutely 100% correct.

Divisions have Consquences, and I’m sure the Devil loves these divisions, don’t you? But one Church has taught the same thing, even as She grew from infancy to Her present state.

Hmm. I lean towards the opinion that Jesus did design a centralized church. It certainly developed that way. I could change my mind here, but it would have to be a very good argument to get me to do so.

That logically means that what we see today is outside of God’s design.

But that does not mean that today one faction is the Church of Jesus Christ and the remaining factions are somehow inferior.

All this is addressed above.

Thanks for your explanations and your patience with me!!

 

[RobNY]

The Jewish Encyclopedia, while old, is considered a good source on things Jewish. It has an article on, “binding and loosing.”

Rabbinical term for “forbidding and permitting.” The expression “asar” (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for “magic spell”). The corresponding Aramean “shera” and Hebrew “hittir” (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (“B J.” i, 5, § 2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta’an. xxii.; Ta’an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).

It also has a section on the New Testament usage.

-Rob

 

[mozart-250]

Good point.

What the Church has taught since Her infancy is that when Jesus is talking to just the Apostles, then He’s talking of Church doctrines. When Jesus is teaching to the crowds, He is talking of our Salvation.

And that makes sense. By saying that, you are putting an implicit restriction and condition on the promise (which is a good thing).

It stands to reason that Jesus would want the Shepherds to be as well grounded as possible on teaching the Faithful on their Salvation.

Yes. So another implicit condition and restriction I would put on any of these big promises to the church (any denomination) is "as long as the Shepherds stay well grounded upon Scripture and are relying daily upon the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I understand you would not put this implicit condition/restriction on this passage. I would.

If I teach someone something that leads them away from Salvation (i.e. Abortion is a woman’s right, Contraception is OK…), then I am teaching something contrary to Christ’s teaching. Then the gates of hell have prevailed.

That is another area where we just disagree. I would view this as the gates of hell gaining a foothold but not prevailing. We are not at the end of the age.

But Christ created A CHURCH. For centuries, there was A CHURCH. St. Paul was clear that Christ and His Church were like a Groom and a Bride. There is ONE CHURCH according to Scripture.

Agreed. Where we disagree is what exactly what that one church is, particularly in the case where the one church divides upon itself (against the command of Christ).

In earthly divisions (say a divorce) it seems to me that it is common that one side keeps the property while the other side moves out. This does not mean that the side that keeps the property is right while the side that moves out is wrong. It’s just the nature of divisions.

It has always seemed to me that an underlying assumption of Catholicism has been that because “we have kept the property” (so to speak) that we remain the One Church and that the rest of y’all are something else.

Divisions have Consquences, and I’m sure the Devil loves these divisions, don’t you? But one Church has taught the same thing, even as She grew from infancy to Her present state.

Well debatable since the first hint of belief in the assumption of Mary is 350-400AD or so (and it did not become dogma till around 1950.

Of course you will say that the doctrines have “developed”. The problem here is that Protestants can also argue their doctrines have “developed” also. The problem with “development of doctrine” is that when there are two different factions, the answers to the same basic questions can develop independently and in contradiction to each other.

Thanks for your explanations and your patience with me!!

And thank you for yours with me. I’m not as good as I would like at explaining myself sometime.

 

[Nella]

Nella, please list your sources on these accusations. I believe this is scandalous, so I would like to know where you got this information.

Check out what Luther had to say about the corruptions going on just prior to the Reformation. You will get your answer.

 

[Nella]

Sorry you think so.
Just for the record your question was/is an attack with nothing to back it up. It is not a fair and honest question but a loaded question.
No venom intended.
Just history and the truth. Show me where I am wrong.
You made the statement that Catholics were evil and un biblical
You made some very strong accusations about the Catholic Church such as the clergy are rapists and fornicators.
Let’s for the moment say that is true. Is the Anglican church any better?
You say that the church does things that are un biblical.Name one.
Not one thing the church does isn’t based on the bible. You may not like our interpretation of the bible. Not everything the church does is to be found in its developed form but neither is the rosary nor is the trinity.

We maintain that the church is the interpreter of the bible.

I understand what you are saying here, but i never said that the Catholic church was evil. I don’t believe that. I believe that it has gone astray and because of the arrogance of its hierarchy, it continues to veer further away from truth as it is leading its faithful. This was proven prior to the Reformation as I properly stated what the clergy was guilty of to name just one account of corruption. Is the Anglican church any better? I believe that it is much better equipped to weather storms against truth with its Reasoning of all its faithful instead of merely one group of men to wield authority over all of its members. Is there corruptness going on in the Anglican church, you bet there is as is yours and everywhere else. It is part of our fallen nature thanks to Adam. It is how we address that corruption and act upon what we know that counts. I disagree with your Magisterium and I do not believe that teaching infallibility among men is what jesus wanted us to do. You DO believe this to be truth and that is where our barrier is. I don’t however believe that the RCC is evil.

 

[NotWorthy]

That is another area where we just disagree. I would view this as the gates of hell gaining a foothold but not prevailing. We are not at the end of the age.

OK, but then I, as a sinner, should be able to go to my Church’s teachings and believe that they are the Truth. If I find that ONE teaching is off, then I will then come to question every teaching. At this point, some will disagree with this point, and some will disagree with that point… and then you end up with multiple denominations (“And Satan laughing with delight” - Sorry, American Pie is in my mind for some reason).

Agreed. Where we disagree is what exactly what that one church is, particularly in the case where the one church divides upon itself (against the command of Christ).

In earthly divisions (say a divorce) it seems to me that it is common that one side keeps the property while the other side moves out. This does not mean that the side that keeps the property is right while the side that moves out is wrong. It’s just the nature of divisions.

It has always seemed to me that an underlying assumption of Catholicism has been that because “we have kept the property” (so to speak) that we remain the One Church and that the rest of y’all are something else.

So, you go back to the teachings of the Church from Her roots. Did the Church teach one thing during this time, while She taught something diametrically opposed during that time.

A good example is Contraception. Eighty years ago it was a sin and an abomination against God. Now, it’s an individual’s choice. Where has the Church ever taught that someone’s sense of right and wrong determines the case of a sinful act?

Well debatable since the first hint of belief in the assumption of Mary is 350-400AD or so (and it did not become dogma till around 1950.

Of course you will say that the doctrines have “developed”. The problem here is that Protestants can also argue their doctrines have “developed” also. The problem with “development of doctrine” is that when there are two different factions, the answers to the same basic questions can develop independently and in contradiction to each other.

You bring up a good case with the Assumption. But the Assumption, what doctrine did it replace?

In the case of the various developments of Protestant denominations, they aren’t “developments” as much as they are “complete new directions”.

• The Necessity for Reconciliation has been replaced with Once Saved always saved.
• Baptism is necessary for Salvation has been replaced by “Faith alone now saves you”.
• The Real Presence in the Eucharist? It’s just a symbol.
• God Loves us all and wills us all to go to heaven? No, only the “elect”.

All of these are original teachings that can go to the Early Church’s History and taught throughout. The “morphed” beliefs are only a few hundred years old.

I’m not saying you believe this, I’m just saying this has been the result of these numerous split-ups.

And thank you for yours with me. I’m not as good as I would like at explaining myself sometime.

You’ve been most kind with this “arrogant” Catholic .

The thing I feel about the Catholic Church and my Christian Brothers and Sisters:
Yes, we all have a chance, through Christ, to get to Heaven. But I look at a game of football to draw an analogy, and I’m the coach. If I wish to win the football game (get to heaven), and I know I’ve got some star players that will make it much easier to win, doesn’t it make sense to use them? I mean, I might win without my star quarterback, running back, and linebacker, but it would certainly be a harder fight.

Well, in short, I’d like to take advantage of my best players:
Quarterback - Mass and the Eucharist
Tailback - Sacrament of Penance
Split End - Mary and the Communion of Saints
Linebacker - All the other Sacraments

 

[Mannyfit75]

I understand what you are saying here, but i never said that the Catholic church was evil. I don’t believe that. I believe that it has gone astray and because of the arrogance of its hierarchy, it continues to veer further away from truth as it is leading its faithful.

If it gone astray then Jesus lied to us because he did promise that gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Have you read the Encyclicals of the Popes, they are clearly Christ centered. I don’t believe that the CC have gone astray and depart itself from the Truth.

There has been sinful men in the Catholic Church and cause great scandal within the Church. That doesn’t prove that Catholic Church has fallen. If you do make the such claim, then Jesus wasn’t a Messiah because when he establish His Church upon the Apostles, he had one Apostle who betrayed him and another denied Jesus three times. Another was a former Pharisee who persecuted the Early Church but converted and became a Christian after his encounter with Jesus on his way to the road of Damascus.

This was proven prior to the Reformation as I properly stated what the clergy was guilty of to name just one account of corruption. Is the Anglican church any better? I believe that it is much better equipped to weather storms against truth with its Reasoning of all its faithful instead of merely one group of men to wield authority over all of its members. Is there corruptness going on in the Anglican church, you bet there is as is yours and everywhere else.

The Anglican Church was form because the King of England wanted divorce wife. Rome denied him the Bill of Divorce. I don’t what authority gave the King to break when Jesus clearly states that “anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”

It is part of our fallen nature thanks to Adam. It is how we address that corruption and act upon what we know that counts. I disagree with your Magisterium and I do not believe that teaching infallibility among men is what jesus wanted us to do. You DO believe this to be truth and that is where our barrier is. I don’t however believe that the RCC is evil.

Then why do you respond with so much Anti-Catholic rants in your posts?

The Magisterium of the Church defines that when she teaches in moral and faith issue they are infallible with the aid of the Holy Spirit. The men themselves are not promised to be impeccable. They can sin.

Many Protestants confuse infallibility with impeccability. Impeccability is always perfect. Infallibility is preserved from error when teaching Ex-Cathedra on moral and faith issues.

 

[NotWorthy]

To say that the Church has gone astray because the Pope has, is to claim that the Pope is the Church.

The Church is two entities, well really three:
a) Christ
b) Her teachings
c) sinners

The Pope, who’s position is part of the Church’s teachings, but he is simply one of the sinners that make up the faithful (granted some popes have been more faithful than others). If the Pope were to teach a false doctrine, then yes, he’s taken the Church off the cliff. But if the Pope is a reprobate, without teaching false doctrines, then the Pope is a reprobate - nothing more, nothing less - But the Church remains the same.