|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/10/2008 8:23:53 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1141
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Which is a hypothesis, but not a demonstrable fact.
Admittedly, it is very inconvenient to deal with the words in Matthew, if you are trying to dismiss Peter.
As to the Jewish context related to "binding and loosing" as it is used in 16 - I believe that is the context in which one describes the binding and loosing authority given to Peter as that being that of authorizing those materials and sets of instruction beneficial to the definition and formation of faith per...
Hmm. If that's so, then why can't Peter keep his theology straight, without Paul having to straighten him out? If there's some sort of super-special final theological authority transfer, surely Peter wouldn't have made such an obvious gaffe.
Edit: Incidentally I'm not trying to "dismiss" Peter. He's an Apostle, and an important figure in our faith. But, that doesn't mean that I'm going to accept the idea that he's the boss of everything theological without some concrete evidence.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/11/2008 1:36:07 AM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to the Jewish context related to "binding and loosing" as it is used in 16 - I believe that is the context in which one describes the binding and loosing authority given to Peter as that being that of authorizing those materials and sets of instruction beneficial to the definition and formation of faith per...
quote:
The sorts of judgments that were handed down under binding and loosing are related to acceptable doctrine,
from post #10.
Don't let me put words in your mouth...there's usually just ants in there, and I don't want to stretch your beak out or anything like that...
The same power of binding and loosing was given to the other disciples as well. But the bulk of the written doctrine of the church was set by PAUL, not by Peter. Aside form the Gospel of Mark (which is generally considered to be the teachings of Peter as written by Mark) and two "post card" Epistles in which Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). What evidence is there that Peter loosed or bound any doctrine of the early church? Certainly not in Acts 15, where James is obviously the leader of the believers gathered in council to determine some very significant doctrine.
There is every indication that the leadership of the early church was collegial rather than hierarchical, as but one example: why the councils rather than appeals to an acknowledged head for a ruling upon the doctrine?
And demonstrably, the other disciples did NOT see either being given the keys or the authority to loose or bind as giving Peter the reins of the church. If they had understood Jesus to have said that then the bickering about who was to be the greatest in the kingdom would have ceased because the Rabbi had spoken. But it didn't, that particular bit if oneupmanship continued unabated.
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/12/2008 7:10:48 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 915
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
There is every indication that the leadership of the early church was collegial rather than hierarchical, as but one example: why the councils rather than appeals to an acknowledged head for a ruling upon the doctrine? And there is every indication that this is exactly how the Catholic Church operates today.
The Pope is not some rogue working in isolation, nor is he some kind of benevolent dictator. He is presiding over the bodies within the Church who lend their gifts to the tasks of discernment where it is required, and he puts the final stamp on what is recommended and presented. While the Church is not a theoretical democracy, it tends to operate as a functional one. There are many in many parts of the world who cringe at the American Church but recognize it for its resources that it provides to the Church for the work of the Church. While there is not compromise on faith, there might be some latitude to accommodate the instruction of faith to operate within American culture. These are the realities of administering a Church - and the Pope presides over the powers that be that determine this degree of latitude, for example.
Its always been this way - otherwise things would have fallen apart, just as you described. Bear in mind that this can get to be political as well; this happens anytime you have more than about three people working on a common endeavor.
What the Pope is and represents is authority - the authority of the Church. I believe this to be a foreign concept to those outside the ancient communions, as the practical authority is "self" in these faith practices, and the concept that the individual discerns what he will from a reading of Scriptures, and then attempts to find a congregation who believes as he does.
The deeper you drill that hole, the more likely that the individual believer will be an army of one. So when the army of one seeks congregation, there is some level of compromise to bring the least common denominator of faith up to some level that allows commonality among enough people to function as a congregation.
For Catholics - the discernment and the resulting faith have already been defined - and we are to accept it or reject it. A completely different model, but the one laid out in Scriptures, in my opinion (otherwise, I would be going to your Church and coming here trying to convert Catholics).
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/12/2008 1:38:58 PM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
And there is every indication that this is exactly how the Catholic Church operates today.
Collegial means among equals, hierarchical means levels of authority. Are all bishops equal? then why are some arch bishops?
Do the bishops get a say in who becomes an archbishop, cardinal or even pope, or is that decided above their level?
If there are levels of command then it is no longer collegial, but hierarchical by definition.
In the early church councils could be and were called by individuals who had issues to be decided, the larger the issue, generally the larger the area upon which the convocation was drawn, because the broader the interest in it would be.
But generally the person to lead the council would be either the person calling it, it is natural that some of the attendees would be more highly respected than others due to their wisdom, piety or scholarship, but that did not confer rank upon them, nor were such matters of respect determined by a vote.
These are merely a few of the differences between collegial and hierarchical systems. Anything can mean anything if you insist upon defining them by your criteria..but that is why there are dictionaries, so that there can be a common fixed definition.
Tim
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/17/2008 8:08:51 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 915
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are all bishops equal? then why are some arch bishops? The hierarchical relationships of Bishops are best described by the use of "Metropolitan" and "Nuncio" and these are primarily adminstrative. A metropolitan presides over such a large area with so many faithful, that he will have bishops working for him.
The difference between archbishop and bishop is a distinction in the importance of the area served by the archbishop, or is a way of honoring a long-serving bishop. So these terms, in theory, are not hierarchical.
Cardinal is a whole other title.
A Google search of these terms will yield websites that will do a much better job of explaining the hierarchical relationships than I will. The hierarchy in this case is as much administrative as anything; when it comes to teaching and instruction - all who are "bishop" are the same, whether that bishop be a metropolitan, a nuncio, an archbishop or whatever. There are only three "levels" in Holy Orders (a Sacrament to us): Deacon, Priest and Bishop.
The Pope is a Bishop.
Here is a link to get you started
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/17/2008 9:18:05 AM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hmm. If that's so, then why can't Peter keep his theology straight, without Paul having to straighten him out? If there's some sort of super-special final theological authority transfer, surely Peter wouldn't have made such an obvious gaffe.
Zhi,
That passage has nothing to do with establishing doctrine, only personal behaviour. That has no impact on his office and Catholics have rebuked Popes throughout history for personal behaviour. We ackowledge popes aren't perfect individuals and yet your are suprised to see that demostrated in the bible...
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/17/2008 10:27:55 AM
|
|
|
BerianAardvark
Posts: 371
Joined: 5/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Are all bishops equal? then why are some arch bishops?
The hierarchical relationships of Bishops are best described by the use of "Metropolitan" and "Nuncio" and these are primarily adminstrative. A metropolitan presides over such a large area with so many faithful, that he will have bishops working for him.
The difference between archbishop and bishop is a distinction in the importance of the area served by the archbishop, or is a way of honoring a long-serving bishop. So these terms, in theory, are not hierarchical.
If the arch bishop has other bishops working for him (under him) then the relationship CANNOT be collegial. Nor do theoretical constructs designed to redefine hierarchical and collegial make it so. Antics and semantics is just another form of sophistry.
Collegial means between equals, not boss/underling. I didn't ask for definitions of the ranks among the church hierarchy, the point I was making was that the early church was collegial, you cannot have a collegial hierarchy.
The reason for all of the councils (large and small) in the early church was because when there was a problem they got together and discussed it coming to a prayerful conclusion based upon scripture. They didn't ask the person higher up on the administrative totem pole for a ruling. Clunky and inefficient as that system may be, it is the real tradition of the early church, collegial.
We are getting far afield from binding and loosing here. I still maintain that the only real way to interpret the terms it to examine the first century usage and understanding of the terms, not the way certain groups have defined them to fit their doctrines.
Nor can the passage indicate that any one disciple was being given the leadership role, since if it had the bickering between them as to who was the greatest in the kingdom would have been answered and so would have ceased. It didn't...they were still carrying it on right up to the last supper.
Tim
_____________________________
The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted - Martin Luther
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/17/2008 4:57:58 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
In Judaism, binding and loosing has long been understood to be a legal designation. During the days of Jesus, these antonyms were used to describe certain religious decisions. The term bind meant to forbid, and loose meant to permit. There are numerous examples of this in rabbinical literature.
To understand this, we must know that first century rabbis were constantly called upon by their communities to interpret scriptural commands. For example, the Bible forbids working on the Sabbath but does not define what specific activities constitute work. As a result, the rabbis ruled as to which activities were permitted on the Sabbath and which were not. They bound or prohibited certain activities and loosed or allowed others.
Peter was given the keys, or the authority, to bind and loose concerning scriptural questions with the early Church. An example of this practice can be found in Acts 15, during the controversy over whether or not Gentiles should be admitted into the fellowship without first being circumcised.
After the apostles and elders convened in Jerusalem, Peter showed an example of loosing when he ruled that both Jews and Gentiles were part of Gods covenant. (Acts 15:9) Then James, the pastor of the Church at Jerusalem, gave an example of binding when he required the believing Gentiles to abstain from the four characteristic practices of the pagans (Acts 15:1320).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/22/2008 4:27:50 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1141
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
That passage has nothing to do with establishing doctrine, only personal behaviour. That has no impact on his office and Catholics have rebuked Popes throughout history for personal behaviour. We ackowledge popes aren't perfect individuals and yet your are suprised to see that demostrated in the bible...
At that point there really wasn't an established doctrine regarding how Jew and Gentile believers should treat each other, so it pretty much would have to be a doctrinal issue.
After all, there was a long history of doctrine telling the Jews to separate themselves. That had to be counteracted.
Interestingly enough, a lot of the doctrine involved there was previous binding and loosing on the part of Jewish religious leaders. So it would be fitting for it to be countered by another binding-and-loosing decision.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/22/2008 5:51:14 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
In Judaism, binding and loosing has long been understood to be a legal designation. During the days of Jesus, these antonyms were used to describe certain religious decisions. The term bind meant to forbid, and loose meant to permit. There are numerous examples of this in rabbinical literature.
Exactly, so the distinction given to Peter is not so distinct. It had much historical precedent.....
Not so, because, in this case it was Jesus - God incarnate - who gave it directly to Peter. In Matt 18, it was given to the apostles as a group. It was not given to disciples in general. In Catholic understanding, this means that, today, the successor of Peter has that same authority, and the successors of the apostles in general (the bishops) have it too, but only as a group, not individually. This is perfectly in line with what Christ ordained, and perfectly in line with how it was excersised in Acts 15, for James could not have done that if the group was not present along with Peter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/22/2008 10:56:40 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2287
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheCatholicCrusader
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
In Judaism, binding and loosing has long been understood to be a legal designation. During the days of Jesus, these antonyms were used to describe certain religious decisions. The term bind meant to forbid, and loose meant to permit. There are numerous examples of this in rabbinical literature.
Exactly, so the distinction given to Peter is not so distinct. It had much historical precedent.....
Not so, because, in this case it was Jesus - God incarnate - who gave it directly to Peter. In Matt 18, it was given to the apostles as a group. It was not given to disciples in general. In Catholic understanding, this means that, today, the successor of Peter has that same authority, and the successors of the apostles in general (the bishops) have it too, but only as a group, not individually. This is perfectly in line with what Christ ordained, and perfectly in line with how it was excersised in Acts 15, for James could not have done that if the group was not present along with Peter.
.
Come on and twist yeah baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the twist
Yeah rock on now
Yeah twist on now
Twist
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: :: What does the Bible mean by binding and loosing? - 7/23/2008 6:03:42 PM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
.
Brilliant Response.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
