A great many more words..
Few are relevant to the question asked so I will no reproduce in entireity since that will serve only to confuse the issue,the words that do address the question I will quote shortly which gets lost in Jeffs hateful ranting to himself - he needs help I think! I thank you at least for being civil and the effort in your reply.
The question asked so many times, now restated.
"What was meant by the power to bind and loose in the context, of Matthew 16:19, later Matthew 18:18, and then in terms of proving delegated powers existed john 20:23 - who was it given to, what was the power, and how do you put this into practice today?
I find it fascinating that most of your words are dedicated to a question I did not ask, in fact specifically excluded. The attempt to evidence it was not Peter, or not peter alone. I asked you who it was, not who it was not.
That illustrates the protestant mindset par excellence. Which like so many political oppostion parties is defined on a negative -not what it is, but what it is not ! so you spend far more words in saying broadly "it is not peter" than you do in skirting the question I asked
So the only parts you address the question at all are...
When Christ gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16: 19), He explained what that meant:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The problem is you give no explanation of what it meant, preferring to say who it applied to!
Only these few words attempt an answer
That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, as it was in John 20:23, with the special application there to forgiveness of sins.
Am I to assume you agree broadly with the sacrament of reconciliation? That regardless of words used to describe you agree that apostles were given delegated authority to forgive or not forgive sins? Do you actual exercise that today, and who do you assume has succession from apostles to do so, or do you believe that died with them?
Most of the protestant commentary on John 20:23 is complete B/S - because the vast majority of protestants argue that Gods saving word can lead to acceptance of christ and forgiving, and that is the meaning of the power, ignoring the fact that disciples were given the power to "retain" as well. Clearly not , then just evangelising, but actual authority in respect of sin..
What denomination if any are you?
But most of the question remains and I tire of asking. What specifically was the power given in Matthew 16:19 when jesus was clearly speaking to peter in respect of binding and loosing? What does that mean in practice? Who exercises that authority today and what authority was given.
That is the question I have for most protestants who having said "it is not peter" then seem to ignore the powers completely such as he power to enforce binding interpretation of law including that based in scripture which in reference to the church of matthew 16 is vital to succession.
Contrary to what the average Catholic has been told, the so-called Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church stood unanimously against the current Catholic interpretation. And I have here the publications of many other devout Catholic historians who say the same thing.
Not so , and let us spare each other the cut and paste war , because so many volumes have been devoted to this, we two will not add to that, nor I suspect persuade each other. There are an army of protestant theologians who accept the primacy of peter, but then who question whether it succeeded from him,! Luther for one, and many others after!
I also think you look at the hairs on the elephants backside and miss the elephant entirely. What is the power presumed by the magisterium and pope in essence? And the answer to that is interpretation and constancy of doctrine.
So forget the mechanism by how it happens and ask the broader question. The hallmark of the "true church" denomination is constancy of doctrine, since revelation does not change, neither can doctrine. Only one denomination has stood for millenia essentially unchanged. Indeed, only after the reformation does doctrine splinter endlessly, and with it the denominations to presently tens of thousands.
So when I refer Matthew 18:17, to avoid peter, but ask the question as to what is the "church" given authority to resolve disputes - how can it be any one of those splinter groups? How can they claim apostolic succession, when they were born of endless splits, so those before them did not believe what they do, and those after them no doubt different again?
The protestants generally have to stand back and decide why it is, that the entire world of protestantism is a continuous cat fight on doctrine - including this forum, seemingly united in only one thing that the "catholics got it wrong" - but as doctrinal ground that is hopeless - all it illustrates is two things. That the new testament is ambiguous, and they have no authority they accept to resolve the divisions.. Do they really think that Jesus would let his church wander off the rails on doctrine, and that people can choose what they want it to believe as most protestants seem to. Or do they really believe he would leave it without a succession?
So ignore arguments on the magisterium which are so many hairs on the elephants backside, look at the elephant which is the fruits of that process. The new testament. The creed. The catechism. All born of the same belief on succession. Essentially Unchanged in two millenia - and that is the hallmark of a true denomination. I see no other that can come close. Moreover the absence of that is visible in all the endless schisms of protestantism.
