Your input needed!!! - Binding and Loosening

I can’t say that I fully understand what my brothers and sisters in Christ of the protestant denominations make of the passages in the Sacred Scripture that speak of Peter being given the Keys, and Peter (and the apostles later) being given the power to bind and loosen (specifically Matt. 16:19)

Please share with me your understanding of these passages, and feel free to give examples as well.

I do not intend for this thread to be a debate, but merely a sharing of protestant beliefs on the subject.

As I grow in my faith, I feel compelled to understand the faiths of others, so your input is greatly appreciated! :thumbsup:

Thank you in advance, and God Bless you.

Generally speaking we believe three things differently than you regarding this verse:

First, the power of the keys relates to the constituting authority in the church - the power to set authoritative rules that would be binding on the entire church for all time. We believe this to be a reference to the writing of scripture (which, in our view, is the ultimate authority in the church).

Second, that that power was invested in all of the Apostles, not just Peter. We point to Matt 18:18 as proof of that.

Third, that that power is non-transferrable since we see no indicator in the rest of the New Testament that that power was actually transferred from one Apostle to a successor.

In other words, the keys are a symbol referring to the Twelve’s status as “super-disciples.”

Some Protestants (esp. of the Charismatic variety) see this as being an indicator that we, as Christians, have the power to “name it and claim it”. Hence the practice of people “agreeing together” in prayer and “binding the enemy” and “loosing blessings” and all that sort of nonsense.

??? This is one of the reasons I am in RCIA. The Catholic explaination in more solid to me. Honestly as a Southern Baptist, I never even thought about it.

Thanks for sharing this. This helps me understand where others are coming from.

I would welcome more input from other members as well. Thanks in advance!


I think your interpretation fails when comparing Mt 16 and Mt 18 passages (keys mentioned only in case of Peter).

What are those keys for and how many holders of those keys there were, I would like to direct you at Is 22,15-23 passage.

THIS is one of the most insightful articles on this topic written by Jimmy Akin (former anti-Catholic, now the head of the apologist staff here on CAF). Please read it when you have time and share what you think.


read that article as well if you want. It’s an excellent one.

I will read it again, but I did read it quite some time back. Thanks, by the way.:thumbsup:

Mainly, in this thread, I want to get an idea of where non-Catholics stand on these passages. I have a long and fruitful relationship with the Church, and I believe as it teaches.

What I don’t have, is a solid understanding of the interpretations of non-Catholics. My conversations with non-Catholics tend to delve into the aspects of Marian doctrine, the Eucharist, Purgatory, and other “marquee” differences between beliefs (this subject is a big one too, however).

I just want to get a glimpse into the hearts and minds of those that don’t share our beliefs. I feel it will add to my ability to converse with them, in the spirit of Charity. It’s too easy for me to make false conclusions on the beliefs of others I do not fully understand.

If this conversation is taking place anywhere else in the forums, I would like to encourage others to put their :twocents: in here in order to help me know where they are coming from.

I am Anglican. I am not what Catholics would think of as a run of the mill Protestant. We believe that Peter was handed the keys to the church but over the centuries the church became corrupt with priests who were pedophiles, fornicators (bishops and popes as well). The church also adopted activities and beliefs that became a huge stretch to try and put them into the light of scripture. Some became blatantly un-Biblical. During the English Reformation, care was taken to preserve the traditions of the early church and the teachings that were squared with scripture. Those that became outlandish were discarded. Anglicans make the sign of the cross, have holy water, believe in the body and blood of Christ, observe the communion of saints and pray the Rosary. We have the vestments, observe the liturgical calender and retain all of the traditional worship equipment that you are familiar with. You are talking to a guy who was a DEVOUT Catholic for decades. I went to mass every Sunday and observed every holy day of obligation. I prayed the Rosary at least once per week, went to Eucharistic adoration, went to confession at least once per month and i felt no manifest of the Holy Spirit. i prayed and prayed but it was like i was dead inside, going through the motions over and over. It became meaningless to me. I had to go elsewhere and take my family too. i found the grace of the Holy Spirit in the Anglican church and i believe it is because of the reasons i spoke of. God will not endorse that which does not obey him and please him.

Without getting into an argument, I think you’ll find the Catholic belief that this was handed on begins in Acts 1:20, where Peter is trying to find a replacement for Judas’ Apostleship.
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.’ I know other translations use the term “Bishopric”.

Irregardless, the position held is that of an “office”, meaning after someone vacates the office, the office remains. We see this is elected officials, and in numerous other positions.

Of course, the book of Isaiah echoes this with Shebna and Eliakim. One loses a position, only to be filled by another.

Thanks for the response.

In particular, and you may have already answered this, what is your take on the passage about binding and loosening. I think I am correct: Anglicans take the same interpretation on this as Catholics?

Thanks again.

Ask others to post their understanding for me as well, please. This is very important to me.:slight_smile:

BTW, Binding and Loosing was an authority that the Pharisees held under the Old Covenant. This authority was well known to the ancient Israelites and they knew full well what it meant.

You’re right, you’re not “run of the mill Protestant”. Most Protestants I know are much more respectful of their Catholic Brothers and their beliefs than you are. :rolleyes:

How is it that the church could be guided by the holy spirit for 1500 years and then all of a sudden the gates of Hell prevailed. Was Jesus a liar?

The Anglican church was not founded on any high lofty ideals of reforming the church but on pure lust of Henry and pure homosexual lust is destroying it today.

Sorry but you aren’t going to convince me that pedophilia is limited to clergy and specifically to Catholic clergy. Yes there are bad priests and bishops but they are sinners not following the teaching of the church whereas homosexuality is becoming the official teaching of the Anglican/Episcopalian church

The Catholic church has no teachings that are un-biblical. They are all** in accordance** with Scripture. Some are more obvious than others.

Be sure to distinguish between matters of discipline and matters of doctrine.

You are just sprewing venom. i was asked a fair and honest question and I get attacked for it. This is the same thing you accuse me of doing to you. I guess when you do it on your forum, that makes it ok

Do you consider voicing my disagreements with you church disrespectful?? If you do, then what you do to me is just as disrespectful.

We believe that over time, the church being run by men had gone astray. Many priests, bishops and popes were pedophiles, fornicators and rapists. The church needed reforming in the most desperate way. There were many problems and many altercations. The church in England considered it best to reform the church and restore the Biblical teachings and practices that it had ge astray from. Our church isn’t just about Henry’s divorce, it was about several church practices that were clearly not Biblical and clearly not tradition from the early church.

How about the comparison of the Greek words Petros and Petras. Very big difference there.

You’re living in an absolute fantasy which has no connexion to historical reality. One reason which the founders of the Anglican Church definitely did NOT give for breaking away from the Catholic Church was that “Many priests, bishops and popes were pedophiles, fornicators and rapists.” I guess if they had have done so, it would have been pointed out that one of the original 12 bishops of the Catholic Church was a murderer.

Your logic is mind boggling which could probably explain your demeanor.

Nella, your view of history (epically Anglican) is disturbing. You say your church was founded to correct these errors (so called to)? The head of your church is a Monarch! Henry’s divorce is of course not the reason why the Church of England broke from Rome, but to live in some fantasy world that the Anglican church was to reform the Catholic Church is laughable, it had to do with politics more then anything else.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit