I don't deny the statement was made, but I do deny the way it has been self-servingly interpreted by the Apostolic Church. This is the ultimate bottomless cookie jar for a few elite men to stick their hands into forever across time. I mean, what a sweet deal for those who hold or want power. All one does is declare that Jesus said we have all power on earth, and when we're gone we declare that our hand-picked successors then have all power on earth. It's perfect. It doesn't pass the scriptural smell test, but that's OK, because scripture only means what the people in power say it means. :) The circle of power is complete.
FK: "It seems like a blank check."
That's why He didn't give it to everybody.
That doesn't address the issue. It is a blank check to the few men in power in the Church. For the Latins, it is a blank check to one man alone. Somehow, Apostolics believe that God writing a blank check to humans to manage their own affairs is something compatible with the weight of scriptural evidence. I can't even fathom that. As far as I can think of, the Apostolic system matches NO prior human-led systems of governance, and DOES match several examples of failure in that regard. No one has ever explained to me why God would want to turn so much power and authority over to men. In the OT, He said plainly that He didn't like the Apostolic model. Was He getting tired? :)
The Orthodox Church never stopped recognizing Papal authority. The dispute it over the extent of his jurisdiction. But the promise of the "keys" was not given only to +Peter but to all God's chosen Apostles (Mat 18:18).
I don't want to speak for the Latins when I don't know the answer, but I would assume that they would say that the extent of the Pope's jurisdiction was determined by "the Church" under the binding clause. I see that as a real dilemma because we have different branches of the one Holy and Apostilic Church claiming different bindings and loosenings. A further example would be that I would think it very possible to be excommunicated in a Latin Church but be welcome in an Orthodox Church, and vice versa. So, how is anyone to really know which bindings and loosenings are really based on power from God, and which are fake. I mean, if a binding was showed to be wrong, then that would ruin it for all the other bindings, etc. (I would assume.) The credibility would be smashed.
IOW, my obvious point is that the bindings AND loosenings of Latins and Orthodox, in some cases, DIRECTLY CONTRADICT one another. If these powers actually existed, then that would be impossible.
I mean, what a sweet deal for those who hold or want power
Yeah, it could be as you say. There is no check other than God. There is no guarantee other than His promise. You rightly point out potential for abuse, and certainly there are plenty of examples where that potential has been actualized. Of course, it doesn't make the headlines or the history books when it is NOT actualized. Nobody splashes "Catholic Parishioners, Clergy in Love with Jesus" across the top of page one. But out polity encourages us to hold nothing back, to stake everything on God and His promise.
I have to look at our former Bishop, Walter the Pink, and his poorly concealed socialism and "Spirit of Vatican II" discomfort with orthodoxy. I have to engage with "Father Joe" and his bitterness at his own "issues" and his need to re-write the liturgy to suit his notions of how it should be. Protestants like to condemn flowing robes, and let me tell you, if they are polyester adorned with cheap and tacky appliques, I'm right there with you.
But finally, after all the wry comments about the Gospel according to Marx and the abysmal hymnody and the art work which seems to suggest that the resolution of the iconoclastic controversy was that you may have images in church as long as they're banal and meretricious, after all that what this does for me is challenge me to put all my faith, to place all my bets, to stake everything on Jesus.
We are told we are institutionally faithless, but the institution itself in its very structure requires that we trust that, though all we see is the earthen vessel, yet there is treasure in it. There is nothing, not even the Bible, not even the Pope, between us and trusting God.
Protestants say we don't believe in the Bible, that we believe in tradition. I say that sooner or later in the Catholic Church it all comes down to trusting God and Him alone, not the Bible, not tradition as such, just Jesus and His promise, a promise no prudent or wise person would trust unless he were led by a Love which finally trumped his prudence.
Yeah, some power hungry perverts may be ripping me off. I'll take that chance.
Flawless logic, the whole post.. I'm amazed that roman catholic or eastern orthodox followers cannot seem to deduce something so simple to me.. But then I cannot fathom how communist and other types of socialists cannot see thru that flawed system either.. it must be a kind of BLINDness..
Each apostle was given the power to bind and loosen within what would become his particular area of the universal church. The authority of one bishop does not extend to the entire universal church. In dogmatic "binding and loosening" where the entire Church came together at a Council, there is no contradictions. Such things as whether to kneel or not during the Eucharistic prayer are not bindings for the entire Church, but for local churches.
It is as if the apostle Bartholemew decided that Indian Catholics would be bound to kneel during the Eucharistic prayer. This binding does not apply to those Catholics in Jerusalem, as James has bound the church there to stand...(for example).
Regards
Like everything else in the Bible, which has been self-serving, even "justification" for various denomination and cults. It all comes down to personal interpretation. But this one is not some fuzzy ambiguous interpretation. It's actually quite unambiguous.
The fact that some people may have abused or misused this commandment does not invalidate it. But you cleverly avoid answering my question, because there is very little, save for a direct and personal objection to the verse, which obviously offends you. You offer no explanation, only your blanket opposition.
What could "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" possibly mean if not what it says, FK? The Reformed have no problem with God making humans destined for hell, but somehow find it "offensive" and "unjust" that God may have elected some people for a specific task. ?
It is a blank check to the few men in power in the Church. For the Latins, it is a blank check to one man alone
What happened to you, FK? You have changed. How can you make such a statement knowing how patently incorrect it is? The Bible tells us that this is not so, and the promise (the "keys") are given to all the Apostles, and their successors, not only to Peter and his.
We all receive blessings; what we do with them is a different story. Surely, we all agree that blessings may have been abused. That doesn't invalidate the blessings. Breaking the law does not invalidate the law; it condemns the lawbreaker.
Kosta: But the promise of the "keys" was not given only to +Peter but to all God's chosen Apostles (Mat 18:18).
FK: I don't want to speak for the Latins when I don't know the answer, but I would assume that they would say that the extent of the Pope's jurisdiction was determined by "the Church" under the binding clause. I see that as a real dilemma because we have different branches of the one Holy and Apostolic Church claiming different bindings and loosenings
With all due respect, FK, you seem to have forgotten everything you once apparently knew about the Church. The binding and loosening has to do with mysteries (sacraments) and not ecclesial matters.
IOW, my obvious point is that the bindings AND loosenings of Latins and Orthodox, in some cases, DIRECTLY CONTRADICT one another. If these powers actually existed, then that would be impossible
I am very sorry that you have come a full circle and have completely lost whatever it is that you had when it comes to the knowledge of the Church. For otherwise you could not make such an ignorant statement, and I am sorry that I have to call it that, because it is.
It is exactly through the unbroken sacramental authority of the apostolic sees that both Churches COMPLEMENT each other! It is through the (seven) sacraments (of which ordination of priests is one) that we know we are one and the same Church, regardless of the external differences. It has always been one and has never ceased being one and only Church Christ established, because it is established on sacramental authority given in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
The promise "whatever you bind..." is not a blanket statement to do whatever one wishes, it's not "Bruce Almighty." Rather "Bruce Almighty" is a non-apsotolic indea what it means to be empowered by God. It's a caricature.
If these powers actually existed, then that would be impossible
It's not magic. The "powers" are Christ's promise. Because it offends you, you deny it, even though it is scriptural.