Binding And Loosing

[jesussaves]

It is claimed peter got the keys in Matthew 16. Here, we see Jesus granting the binding and loosing power to everyone.
Notice the context, here it is about the relationships you form and such that are bound or loosed.
I do notice the context of Matthew 16 and Peter, he talks about the keys, and Jesus was responding to Peter after Peter said Jesus was the Son of God.

I don't see how Catholics reconcile these, if Peter can bind and loose, and others can, then that leaves Peter nothing ni particular. I think binding and loosing are equivalent to the keys, so nothing in particular is made. Or, claiming Jesus is the Son of God is more than just normal binding and loosing, but is about how to get into heaven.
The only way I could see you reconciling is to say that Peter got more with the "keys". I don't see how this is the case and woiuld like more evidence.

quote]Matthew 18
15
11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18
15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19
16 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20
17 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." [/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1274382' date='May 15 2007, 06:44 PM']It is claimed peter got the keys in Matthew 16. Here, we see Jesus granting the binding and loosing power to everyone.
Notice the context, here it is about the relationships you form and such that are bound or loosed.
I do notice the context of Matthew 16 and Peter, he talks about the keys, and Jesus was responding to Peter after Peter said Jesus was the Son of God.

I don't see how Catholics reconcile these, if Peter can bind and loose, and others can, then that leaves Peter nothing ni particular. I think binding and loosing are equivalent to the keys, so nothing in particular is made. Or, claiming Jesus is the Son of God is more than just normal binding and loosing, but is about how to get into heaven.
The only way I could see you reconciling is to say that Peter got more with the "keys". I don't see how this is the case and woiuld like more evidence.

quote]Matthew 18
15
11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18
15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19
16 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20
17 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."[/quote]


Thanks for your opinion. There are alot of them in the world aren't there.


[quote]Peter can bind and loose, and others can, then that leaves Peter nothing ni particular.[/quote]

As a Catholic this makes perfect sense with regard to papal infalliblity and councilar infallibility.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.[/quote]

[jesussaves]

I would like more evidence than just that Peter had a prominent role in the bible. He simply was domineering. Notice James took the dominant role in Acts anyway.
From what I can tell, look at what's lacking in the catholic position. The apostles and others don't say, let's see what Peter says, or anything of the sort. It seems that the catholic's opinion is just as random as any. and apparently moreso random than the better informed christians.

[thessalonian]

I am amazed at how much effort is exerted to make peter just a common man it seems. Barely an apostle. Peter is mentioned by the sacred writers fare more than any of the other 12. 190 times to around 30 for John. I guess this was just Peter himself trying to get in the limelight. He is always mentioned FIRST in lists of the 12. Once again did he hold the writers hand and force them to write his name first. He was not the first apostle chosen. He always speaks for the twelve but I guess you say that has nothing to do with God inspiring him to speak and he was just being domineering. Jesus speaks from Peter's boat a couple of times, pays Peter's tax, Peter is the ONLY apostle who walks on water like Jesus, Peter cures the first person after pentecost, converts the first gentile, etc. etc. Coincidences you will say. Heck maybe we should rip his books out of the Bible. How could such an impetuous lout possible be inspired. Sarcasm.

By the way who silenced the crowd in Acts 15 when he got up to talk and ended the debate on the issue the council was called for. No it was not James. James tells us his judgement regarding meat sacrificed to idols, but everyone else buys in to it. I don't see any more discussion after peter on the circumcision thing.

Lot's more I could say.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1274411' date='May 15 2007, 06:28 PM']I would like more evidence than just that Peter had a prominent role in the bible. He simply was domineering. Notice James took the dominant role in Acts anyway.[/quote]
If you notice, the council was held in Jerusalem because people in that area were having difficulties. There was argument until Peter spoke. Then James sent out a letter declaring what the council had decided in order to instruct his local Church. I think that's normal. Usually after a council, individual bishops go around setting up and establishing norms based on that council's decisions. As you see, papal infallibility does not rest on who goes about articulating what a council said (all bishops should do that), but rather on whose decision is tantamount to the decision of the council, which is clearly Peter's decision. There is no reason to believe that James' speaking last means that he had the final say, especially considering that he only affirms what Peter had said. More importantly, if James was supposed to be the one who was in charge and if the problems were occuring in his area, why was it that God gave the dream to Peter? God was guiding His Church through His Pontiff.

[quote]From what I can tell, look at what's lacking in the catholic position. The apostles and others don't say, let's see what Peter says, or anything of the sort. It seems that the catholic's opinion is just as random as any. and apparently moreso random than the better informed christians.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but you need to back up what you're trying to say. I don't even know what you mean by "random."

As regards your first post, binding and loosing are not the same as the keys. You bind and loose with rope, you lock and unlock with keys. The king in the Old Testament entrusted one of his twelve advisors, the Prime Minister, with the keys of the kingdom. Jesus is doing precisely that.

Further, you'll have to show some proof for your claim that the power of binding and loosing is being given to everyone. I simply don't see it.

God bless,

Micah

[SJP]

Jesussaves:
"I don't see how Catholics reconcile these, if Peter can bind and loose, and others can, then that leaves Peter nothing ni particular."

I don't think that your line of reasoning follows. You imply that because others are given the authority (and it's not clear that it's the same authority) to bind and loose, that Peter's position is of no greater significance than the others. As evidence for your claim you state:

"I think binding and loosing are equivalent to the keys, so nothing in particular is made."

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Especially in light of the fact that the Early Church Fathers (as Thess said) held Peter to be of extreme importance.

Edited May 16, 2007 by SJP

[thessalonian]

The logic is like because congress can vote and pass legislation, the president has no power and is not really president.

Edited May 16, 2007 by thessalonian