To John...
OK ... let us backup because I was not really sure what most of your reply was talking about. We can take it step by step and hopefully not go jumping to conclusions. We will both be lost and debating imaginary issues otherwise. I will try and pay attention to how you use words and that should help.
It seems to me that the tense of the passage has no bearing on how we are to understand the Petrine primacy. The point is that Peter and Heaven are in accord.
No.
Peter is in accord with heaven ... heaven is not in accord with Peter. Peter is not the origin. Heaven (God) is the origin. The two are not equal. Peter has come into accord with Heaven - Heaven enlightens Peter - Peter does not enlighten Heaven. Heaven is eternal and unchanging and uncreated.
Ray, You begin your reply with "No," but then you fail to contradict anything I wrote. I don't understand what you mean by "No."
-John
In this respect John, I was trying to point out that the word 'accord' (which is usually used to indicate: mutual agreement) is not a precise fit for what takes place (took place) between the two parties of �Peter and Heaven...�.
In Catholic theology ... heaven is eternal and not subject to time and change. It is ususally called 'permanence' (unchanging) and the creation is 'impermanence' (changing).
Peter is subject to time and change. Therefore ... Peter can come into agreement with heaven (meaning that he can change) ... but heaven does not come into agreement with Peter (heaven does not change).
Another way to say this is to look at what had just happened in the verse. Apparently ... Peter did not know that Jesus was the son of God � until � and only after - it was revealed to him. Which revelation Matt 16:17 seems to inply had just taken place. But no matter it it just happened on the spot of happened some time before � Jesus tells him �You did not learn that from mortal man� of which the word �learn� certainly indicates that Peter did not know it already ... but learned it. Meaning � Peter did change. The change was when he learned it.
Would you agree with that? (that heaven did not come into agreement with Peter but rather Peter came into agreement with heaven)
Thus we may say that Peter came into agreement with heaven (into accord with a reality which already existed in heaven) ... but it would not be right to say that heaven came into agreement with Peter (for the fact that Jesus is the son of God did not exist in Peter *before* it existed in heaven).
Further proof that Jesus was always God's son would be in the phrase 'the alpha and omega - he who is, who was, and is to come'. A Jewish way of saying :eternal: in as much as it is (in Hebrew) a play on the word 'to-exist' which is translated elsewhere as the famous 'I AM' given to Moses and the "I AM" which Jesus answered when questioned ("Are you the Son of the living God?") by the Sanhedrin. (this is noted in Catholic theology).
In this sense ... I would not agree with the phrase �Peter and heaven are in accord� if it means that they came into a mutual agreement. I would rather prefer the wording ... "Peter is in accord with heaven."
I, myself, would not say "Peter AND heaven" are in accord. Let me make a comparison with something that is like permamance (the sun) and myself (a man). The sun comes up in the moring and I see it ... I can agree that the sun came up ... but the sun does not take my agreement into account when it comes up in the morning. The sun does not take my feelings or beliefs into account and put itself into agreement with me.
Neither does heaven (which for all intents is the mind of God).
I think you will find my thoughts here are further reflected, and confirmed, not only in Catholic theology (heaven is eternal and not subject to change) but also in the tense of the original Greek. Which Greek is accurately given in the Catholic Douay-Rheims version (pre-Infallibility) but inaccurate in some later Catholic versions (post-Infallibility). I do not say why that is - I only note it.
�whatsoever thou bindest on earth ... shall be having been bound in the heavens�. This is the same as saying 'shall have been already bound in heaven'.
So again, this demonstrates that whatever is bound by Peter on earth (in time) � already has existence as bound in heaven. This give Peter a confirmatory role. Meaning that Peter may confirm an already existing reality.
This confirms what I have said (if you understand it as I mean it) that Peter can come into accord (agreement) with heaven ... but heaven does not come into accord (agreement) with Peter.
Now, I have not talked about the Catholic doctrine of Infallibility yet (we are backing up and starting over).
Would you agree with me so far ... on just this first item?
or do you see these things mentioned in a different way?
Would you agree from the above - that Peter's role (whatever that may be) is confirmatory (confirming what has already existed in heaven) ... or ... that his role be judicial (heaven changes to come into accord with his pronouncements)?
-ray
