Replies

Yet Matthew 18:18 repeats the language of loosing and binding to the disciples as a group:

18 Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

Notice the bolded "bind" and "loose" are second person plural, thus:

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

By which we see this power of binding and loosing was addressed to all of the disciples, not just Peter. To try and maintain a distinction by suggesting there are two different categories of loosing and binding would pass the limits of credibility. When Christ confers this on Peter, He does not say, "and only you," so there is no rule of exclusion to overcome, and here in 18:18 we see the extension of this power to all His disciples.

To me the interesting question here is not the extent of the power, but what exactly is it. Merely the sacrament of penance? Or possibly something of much grander scope. We know God had used the "key" metaphor before:

Isa 22:20-22 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Jesus is God, so in effect we have the same speaker in both places. Just as God in Isaiah is deposing Shebna for cause, and raising Eliakim in his place, and signifying that transfer of blessing and divine authority with the metaphor of the key, so too in Matthew we see the failed magisterium of Israel, though it had the full authority of Moses, being deposed by God through God's Son Jesus, and the consequent power and blessing of the Gospel being transferred to the disciples of Jesus, however humble their earthly estate. Thus whoever rejects their message, as the old magisterium of Israel would surely do, would find themselves still bound by their sins, and those who receive the apostolic message would be loosed from their sins.

This is power to bind and loose was never framed as the power to forgive an individual's sins by declaration. Even Jesus' enemies understood only God as having that power:

Mar 2:5-11 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

So do we ever see this power of binding and loosing expressed in the form of an apostle doing as Jesus did and just offering forgiveness outright for anything, ever? No. But we do have this interesting exchange between Simon the sorcerer and Peter:

Act 8:18-24 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

The other act of Peter here is to invite Simon to seek forgiveness from God directly, not through Peter as an intermediary. This is consistent with the approach of any Gospel minister. Sin must be exposed, so that the sinner knows his need of forgiveness. But then forgiveness does not come through the magisterium, or the sacerdotal rituals of a defunct and obsolete priesthood.

By Peter's own example, if forgiveness comes at all, it comes from responding to the call to repent, and seek forgiveness directly from God, which Simon was free to do, though he was still too much afraid to seek it directly, and asked Peter to offer intercession for Him. But Peter had told him what to do, and there is no record of Peter interceding for him. So the model is set. Repent, and ask God directly for His forgiveness. All who do so will find a God Who is eager to reconcile and welcome the repentant sinner home.

Peace,

To try and maintain a distinction by suggesting there are two different categories of loosing and binding would pass the limits of credibility.

I was not suggesting that Petrine authority was based on the power of binding or loosing, only correcting a mistake by Elsie who was trying to make a point from a misreading of the text. This highlights the deficiency of private interpretation.

Given, as you have shown, that the power of binding and loosing was not unique to Peter, it is something that is proper to the Church. Where is the power today?

You anticipated me by your reference to Isaiah 22. Here the grant of keys represents the bestowing of the office of Master of the Palace. Likewise when our Lord promises to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (and here it is only to Peter) he is likewise bestowing an office like that of the Master of the Palace. The Roman term for this office is vicar. Hence Peter, by our Lord's instillation, is his vicar, i.e. the Vicar of Christ.

So here, when Peter has a perfect chance to grant forgiveness on his own initiative, instead he does two things, neither of them a grant of forgiveness.

You forget that the power is to forgive sins (which is explicitly mentioned in John 20:23) or to retain them. Absolution must be accompanied by repentance, contrition and a firm resolution to sin no more. Addressing Simon, Peter states, "Your heart is not upright before God. Repent of this wickedness of yours." Simon is not yet ready of forgiveness. Hence, Peter not offering absolution proves nothing.

So here, when Peter has a perfect chance to grant forgiveness on his own initiative, instead he does two things, neither of them a grant of forgiveness. First, he publically exposes Simon for the spiritual fraud and lost soul he truly was, though he had tried to come into the church. Perhaps this is one form of shutting. The other act of Peter here is to invite Simon to seek forgiveness from God directly, not through Peter as an intermediary. This is consistent with the approach of any Gospel minister. Sin must be exposed, so that the sinner knows his need of forgiveness. But then forgiveness does not come through the magisterium, or the sacerdotal rituals of a defunct and obsolete priesthood.

Peter rebukes Simon and essentially threatens him with death for sinning against the Holy Spirit.
Peter gives Simon a chance to repent, telling him to ask God, if perhaps he might be forgiven and not die.
Simon asks Peter to pray for him that his judgment may be averted.

The text is silent on what happens to Simon. It was not so for Ananias and Sapphira so I assume Peter and the Hoky Spirit accepted Simon's repentance. We will find out.