Jesus' Gift of Freedom

Off the top of my head, "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." ;-)

I think the bible describes the early community as gooing about confessing their sins to one another. Later I believe only bishops could hear confession and then only three sins: apostacy, murder and adultery.
I have always taken the above quote as an admonition. We are to proclaim the gospel. Part of that is the forgiveness of sin. So anyone who is loosed--surely this was Jesus ministry--is loosed. Where we FAIL to do the work of Jesus, we fail Him and the gospel as well as one another.

Ok, perhaps we should put the vs back in context to start with:

Matthew 16:13-20
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

This is addressed to Peter, not to crowd, nor the disciples, nor even the Twelve (although that comes later).

Indeed, Jesus came to free us from our sins. That IS the Gospel. He gave us personal means to continue to receive the graces He bestowed, ie the Sacraments.

After the Resurrection Jesus appears to the Apostles: (John 20:19-23)

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

And more specifically confers the power to forgive sins.

Paul and James both refer to the ministry of Reconciliation, even that it is proper to the priests. (James 5:14)

Here today.

In the Lord's prayer, Jesus taught us to pray, "forgive us the wrong we have done as we forgive those who wrong us." (Mt. 6: 12)

Jesus also said, "If you forgive the faults of others, your heavenly Father will forgive yours. If you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive you." (Mt. 6: 14-15)

So, to all those who are so quick to condemn the "sins" of others and toss them out of the Chruch, could it be that, in doing so, you are condeming yourselves?

Bob, read the thread. This is a sustained discussion on the Sacrament of Confession, in which no one (save your enlightened self) has broached the topic of excommunication. Stop trolling.

Frannie, it is not given to all, but to Peter and the Apostles, and through them to the priests. As Jesus states elswhere in the Gospel, it would be presumtious for us to forgive an offense against another, and nigh on blasphemy for us to forgive an offense against God.

yes, I'd like that quote also.

I am not a bible scholar. Help me find where Jesus said that. I remember folk saying something like that about Him.

It could be it was given to Peter as the personification of the church. Nothing you quoted to me changes my mind that the first expression of confession among early Christians was to ONE ANOTHER. Nor does it change my conviction that forgiveness is every Christian's business.

Yes, the Sacrament of Confession. You seem quite comfortable with saying Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive yet you don't seem interested in what Jesus said would be the consequences of not forgiving. Whattsammer Here Today, afraid to address what I wrote? Fishermen always troll.

It's called not taking the bait. New topic, new thread, if you wish. (and troll, as in the creature under the bridge).

Thanks. I am familiar with the story but it's always good to read it again. I don't see anything there that conflicts with what I wrote. In fact, the passage reinforces it. IF YOU DO NOT FORGIVE THEM, THEY ARE NOT FORGIVEN. Our job is to continue Jesus ministry of the forgiveness of sins, not to thwart it. Jesus was prodigal in His forgiving. He never waited for a confession. Peter knew this when he said,"You know that I love you." THAT was Peter's confession.

We hold the keys to the kingdom. All we need do is pass them around.

SIGN of the TIMES

But what about the POINT of this instruction from Jesus (also from Matthew 16):

"Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."

Or BETTER YET, what about the teaching that introduces chapter 16:

"The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." Then he left them and went away."

It is the CONTEXT that is important. When scriptural interpretation is joined with and within the context of one's own life and experience we have the grace of revelation (impossible without a faith community.) NO ONE can do this for anyone else: NO ecclesiastical authority; NO theologian; NO surrogate. The cross is not a category or religious icon; it is an experience - singular and unique to the context of the community.

WHY is this so hard to understand?

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

"Why is this so hard to understand?"

Because it seems in opposition to the establishment of an authoritative Church by Christ. If we continue our exploration of Mt 16 we come across Peter receiving the keys of the kingdom. (which of course is the immediate context of my quote). Now how would Jesus have meant this speaking to His Jewish Apostles? (assuming that the social context is itself important) The keys were usually not held by the master of the house, but by his steward. This servant was entrusted with all the master's affairs and possesions. He has authority over all the other servants, and he commands them as his lord desires. Likewise the prefigurement of the removal of the authority of the priests of the Temple (Isaiah 22) mentions placing the key on the shoulder of the Lord's servant.

If such an authority exists in the new Church (back to Mt16:18 and following), then there can be limits on interpretation. Now that does not mean that we souldn't read the Scriptures, or even try to interpret them for our lives, but that our interpretations should be guided by the Church.

*ht*, I have no oppositional intent in this particular comment (and actually very little such intention in any of my comments as I, myself, am an ardent institutionalist as I've explained in another response.) But I wonder why your exegesis is so focused on defense of the authority of the Church and so unwilling to engage my two pointers: the cross and "signs". Do you discount that Matthean teaching in chapter 16? I'm genuinely curious.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

I too have no confrontational intent, just trying to answer the question.;-)

I'm not sure where you are headed with those references, I really don't want to do an explanation of the Gospels in cultural and religious context, (nor do I think that it is necessary).

As it is, I see little that I could possibly disagree with. (I like how that is happening more often, at least as far as your postings are concerned.)

*ht*, rather than request an answer in cultural and/or religious contexts, I was interested in your personal experiential understanding. The cross and the signs, as these Matthean words seem to suggest, are very uniquely personal to those whom Jesus addresses. He knows this and points to unique and very intimate understanding over and over.

It seems to me that in Matthew's time as in Jesus', the confounding Powers and secular strife were taking people farther and farther away from the authenticity of their own experience, to the extent that even with the Messiah right there in front of them (or in Matthew's case, in living memory) they were unable actually to BELIEVE what they were experiencing.

When I observe some of the discordance in the discussion on this site and elsewhere, I seem to run up against a very simple division: those who appeal to an abstract category (all reducible to "them" - the apostate, the sinful, the stupid, the evil-intentioned; and "us" - the Lawful) and those who appeal to their own unique way of searching for God's will (multivaried, tentative, provisional, unfinished.)

But when the cross, itself-for-us, becomes the way that Jesus beckons us, and when the appeal He makes over and over to ordinary experience is so prominent in His teaching, (I, for one, do not think this was just a clever rabbinical hortatory device), then I cannot understand how the mediated distance of the abstract continues to persist.

I'm only headed to where I am - deeper into my experience of the Living and Present God-among-us-in-Christ.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

I'm not sure how the Matthean text emphasizes the signs as personal (Matthew was writing to show the Jews the Messiah, thus he emphasized the fulfilment of prophesies (signs))

Anyway, as for the signs in my life, I need glasses... I know they're there, but figuring out what they mean... Still in general personal signs are embeded in our souls, that part within us that is drawn to what we are meant to do with our lives. (Not just vocations, but this is usually the primary call for them as well.)

General signs exist in our times too, what they are and how to read them? Well, lets say that is colored very much by what and how we believe. I look at the chaos in the Catholic Church after Vatican II, and see it as a result of changes made at that time. I look at where there is less chaos, where the vocations crisis is not felt as badly, where my fellow young discerners are looking, and I take that as a sign of the direction that the Church is called to move in. Others here most definately do not agree, looking at the crisis a sign that more change is needed.

The cross, I am much more familiar with, in little things and big. The little sacrifices that we should make, but don't even see, the big sacrifices we do everything to avoid. The joining of all our petty problems (and most of our problems are just that), all our temptations, even our failings, and offering them to God in unison with the suffering of Christ. (any mention of the cross must come back to the Sacrifice of the Cross in our own time;-)).

I am on this site because I NEED to understand where people are coming from. I am freer here to dig, thrust, and chip away, even if people get offended, then I am in my local parish, despite similar views on many things. (Let's just leave it that I still want to be able to talk to my family and the end of the day.) I am (and was) aware that "they" usually are well intentioned, well educated (although in my experience that is often part of the problem), good people. The "they" I really blame are the flesh, the world, and the devil, whose snares I have fallen into often enough. To seek to understand where people are coming from includes not writing off those who hold with 4000+ years of Tradition, Scripture, and Revelation as "medieval". Basing one's faith on personal experience does not prevent an opposition to "other", but seems to strengthen it.

Here Today,

Thanks for the above post. Let me give you some of where I am coming from. Are we creatures of God or do we create god? Are we God seekers or is god a projection that meets some need we have. Do we recognize God in creation or see god where god is not? I believe both.

I think, from the very beginning, we have both recognized and seen God in creation, in events, in life. Based on this, we began to develope a concept of God in our minds. That concept contains truth and error. In a way, it is true to say that, while our concept of God is not God, it is God for each of us. I relate to God as I conceive of God which is not the same as saying I relate to God as God is. I believe it was Richard Rohr who said the greatest hindrance to the next word of God is the last word of God. Long before I could think for myself, my parents, my family, my chruch, my society was imparting to me their concept of God. This idea, printed in my mind so early that I hardly realize it was learned and not infused, colors the way I will see God for the rest of my life. It is very difficult to see God in a different light. I think this is not only a problem for me (us), it is a problem for God.

When, at the beginning of the story of Salvation History, God interjected him/herself into human history to help us clarify our mental image of God and draw us to him/herself, God had to contend with the perconceived notions of God that people had at any given point in time. The experience of God was always interpretated in light of what people expected God to be like and act like. God respects this and, with great patience, leads us to a deeper understanding of Godself. The Israelites has no problem with a God who would tell Samuel to tell Saul to wipe out entire populations and to reject Saul when he failed to do so. If someone today came to us and said God wanted us to kill all muslims, while I do fear there are those who would be only too happy to hear it, I believe you and I would reject it because God, as we understand God, simply would not say such a thing. But, the Israelites, way back then, given their understanding of God and their cultural values, believed it.

If we could go back in time and talk to those Israelites and try to tell them God would be totally oppesed to such actions, what do you think their reply would be? We would probably get stoned.

If our understanding, our mental image of God were perfect, it would remain always the same. But our concept of God is far from perfect. We, as those Israelites, believe we understand God, but we really don't nor will we ever.

I belive our understand of God is and must be ever evolving as is our understanding of creation and our morality must reflect this. It is not that God is changing (although I wonder) or that "truth" is changing, it is only that our understanding of God and truth is developing. For this to happen, we must question. We must be open. I used to kid, back before I retired, that, in the ourfit I worded for, we had procedures and policies that were cast in stone and subject to change without notice.

While I don't believe in bending to every wind and fancy that comes along, I don't think we can cling to the rock either. It is only when we can recognize the possibility that things could just possible by other than as we understand them that we are open to grow. Yes, after questioning we may well conclued that we were right in the first place. But only when we question while being open to a deeper understanding is a deeper understanding possible.

Hi Bob,
Your response to 'HT' is as fascinating as it is factual -what a great read of reasoning and one which so coincides with my everyday experiences.

John Ortberg authored a book titled 'If you want to walk on water get out of the boat' Zondervan 2001. It explained quite simply my changing mindset about God in the life and times of Jesus.

'When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.' -C.P. Snow, scientist and writer(1905-1980)

Ninja
><>

Thanks, Ninja.

Here Today,

That is the most beautiful personal comment I've read of yours. Thank You so much for opening your heart and with so much trust and love. I'm very moved Here Today! Today, I do see God in your heart and your sharing.

May God Bless you here Today for your compassionate heart. Please forgive me as I stand sinful with bowed head before you. Bless You here today.

:-)

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Here Today,

I second Joer's post.

Bob

And I, too, Here Today.

William D. Lindsey

Dear all,

Poetman you have summed it all up in your posting. That is what John Cardinal Newman was proposing in his defense of the 'primacy of individual conscience'.

Well may we claim to be the Pope's man or woman - we are God's first and foremost. We originate from Him and ultimately return to Him.

Not religion, not even Christianity is the way to God, Jesus is the way to God.

Ninja
><>