Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Albion]

I counter that assesment when i stand behind what i said.

What's the counter?

HOW can we have the truth if we have no guardian of the truth?

Why would we need a guardian of the truth in order to make the truth what it is?

Peter went so far as to suggest condemnation to those who wrested the scriptures and Paul's Epistles.

Obviously, this means someone was attempting to give an opinion on what Paul wrote and what the OT meant.

Peter rebuked doing that.
It is rather obvious in the context of things.

What does Peter say to do instead?


BTW, I see a problem developing here. You have stated several conclusions as if we all agree to them...and then are working back by saying "since this is so, how can any other POV be right?'' But we can't do that. We can's assume that the RCC is the Church Christ founded and no other. We cannot assume that when he gave keys to Peter, that they mean what you want them to mean. We can't assume that Jesus had a club or organization as opposed to a movement in Himself when he spoke of his "church." We have to settler all those points before posing questions about other POVs.

 

[WarriorAngel]

As I said before, there are a lot of misconceptions and errors in those points. But did you want me to start myself and begin with point #1?

OK.



Why say such a thing as that? Is it indeed correct to say that "no one" has the truth or that no one knows what anything means? If that were so--and we do not know it to be the case that someone somewhere doesn't have it right--then God would be a colossal failure, wouldn't he? His revelation was for nothing according to that conclusion--he gave and no one got it. No one.

But in fact, we have no reason to doubt that although some people may miss the point or misunderstand, or just not care, some people DO get it.

So, that means that point #1 is unsustainable (and I don't know that there is anyone who DOES think that no one knows anything).

Your reaction?

Why?

As I told someone above - it should be fully taken in context of what i just said.

According to your analogy, this is what must occur.
IF the Pope who has succession to the Chair of Peter - [and Jesus tells us that what authority He sets up has a Chair via the Chair of Moses that in His day they must sustain and obey]- then how does anyone who disputes what he teaches which has been passed on with the Promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail - have it right if he [Pope and successor] doesnt have it right?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Why?

As I told someone above - it should be fully taken in context of what i just said.

According to your analogy, this is what must occur.
IF the Pope who has succession to the Chair of Peter - [and Jesus tells us that what authority He sets up has a Chair via the Chair of Moses that in His day they must sustain and obey]- then how does anyone who disputes what he teaches which has been passed on with the Promise from Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail - have it right if he [Pope and successor] doesnt have it right?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7321693/
Chair of Peter question

 

[Albion]

Why?

Why what? I asked for some explanation of how it can be that no one knows that God wants us to know. That's what you wrote in your point #1.

According to your analogy, this is what must occur.
IF the Pope who has succession to the Chair of Peter

It might occur IF there were a Pope and if Jesus meant for Peter to pass anything on. As you know, he didn't speak of either of those occurring.

Maybe we should have that verse to look at which deals with the Chair of Moses.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I counter that assesment when i stand behind what i said.[/qutoe]
What's the counter?

Why would we need a guardian of the truth in order to make the truth what it is?


What does Peter say to do instead?

IF Peter rebukes and admonishes anyone for trying to discern the OT and Paul's writings on their own, it is obvious that:
1-They shouldn't do this on their own.
2-There is a guardian - a teacher - who is to be the one who teaches what it means.

So if we dispute the Pope as the one who is given the succession to Peter, then who is left?

Peter is obviously stating that we do not attempt to understand scriptures or Paul on our own, but to seek the teachers who are in fact - the guardians of what it all means.

OR based on the assumption we don't need a guardian, then what Peter said - means nothing and makes absolutely no sense. In light of the fact he was suggesting that someone must have the truth and it is not everyone. But those who are ordained to do the ministry given them via Christ Himself.

Same is evident when Philip was sent via the Spirit to teach the Eunich and baptise him.
Not just anyone was choosen to do this, but the teachers of the Church. The ones ordained to do this. The ones whom Christ hand picked to teach.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Why what? I asked for some explanation of how it can be that no one knows that God wants us to know. That's what you wrote in your point #1.



It might occur IF there were a Pope and if Jesus meant for Peter to pass anything on. As you know, he didn't speak of either of those occurring.

Maybe we should have that verse to look at which deals with the Chair of Moses.

Why did He specifically [with ceremony] for the others who were witnesses to the exchange...
Hand the keys to Peter at all - if it was moot point?

Why did the Spirit lead them to write about this ceremonial exchange if it didn't mean anything?

 

[WarriorAngel]

BTW, I see a problem developing here. You have stated several conclusions as if we all agree to them...and then are working back by saying "since this is so, how can any other POV be right?'' But we can't do that. We can's assume that the RCC is the Church Christ founded and no other. We cannot assume that when he gave keys to Peter, that they mean what you want them to mean. We can't assume that Jesus had a club or organization as opposed to a movement in Himself when he spoke of his "church." We have to settler all those points before posing questions about other POVs.

Then the burden of proof lies in your court.

All the early writings of the first Church [thru history] points to Rome and Peter and the Pope as the teacher, the truth, the leader, the authority.

If you remove the succession to Peter - then where does the Church that all must obey sit?

This is where you need to have answers.

I can show you many many quotes that state Rome, Peter, the Pope, the Successor of Peter - are where truth lies.

IF there are no successors then there was no deposit of truth , if there is no deposit of truth, then we are all condemned for wresting the scriptures, and nothing matters because no one on earth matters enough for God to keep it intact.

Well, that's the basic conclusion on why He set things up the way He did... but if it doesn't exist, i certainly feel we are all doomed then.

If Peter was worthy to be part of the scriptures in what he said.

 

[Albion]

IF Peter rebukes and admonishes anyone for trying to discern the OT and Paul's writings on their own, it is obvious that:
1-They shouldn't do this on their own.
2-There is a guardian - a teacher - who is to be the one who teaches what it means.

It is not obvious at all. I asked you what Peter said was the alternative to trying to discern on their own. What did he say? No guesses. What was Peter's alternative? There are potentially a dozen ways of doing it right if what Peter opposed is wrong to do.

So if we dispute the Pope as the one who is given the succession to Peter, then who is left?

We don't know if we have a Pope at all. And there are all kinds of possibilities for "who (or what) is left" if you think about it. Some of the early Christians followed James, some Paul, some Matthew, some Thomas, etc.

;t Peter is obviously stating that we do not attempt to understand scriptures or Paul on our own, but to seek the teachers who are in fact - the guardians of what it all means.

No' "Obvious" in there, WA. Are "guardians" mentioned by Peter? If so, who does he say that they are. You made your case on Peter's admonition aboaut discerning scripture, so we need to know his answer to it, if he gives one.

OR based on the assumption we don't need a guardian, then what Peter said - means nothing and makes absolutely no sense.

Not to me. There are several possibilities that immediately come to mind.

Same is evident when Philip was sent via the Spirit to teach the Eunich and baptise him.
Not just anyone was choosen to do this, but the teachers of the Church. The ones ordained to do this. The ones whom Christ hand picked to teach.

But because these men, famous as they were, were chosen, doesn't tell us anything about who is to do the same, or anything else in the church, today. No, nothing about that is a "given" just because of who was sent out at that time.

 

[Albion]

Then the burden of proof lies in your court.

No, I have not made any suppositions that I'm asking you to agree to before we even begin -- Popes, successions, Chairs, Peter's keys, etc. All of these and more you take for granted as proven and correct before we know that they are. If you want to try to prove them true, be aware that there is plenty of evidence that other meanings are more credible and Apostolic.

All the early writings of the first Church point to Rome and Peter and the Pope as the teacher, the truth, the leader, the authority.

That's simply not true. Many ECFs said that someone other than Peter was the head, or that there was no such individual leader.

I can show you many many quotes that state Rome, Peter, the Pope, the Successor of Peter - are where truth lies.

From the time of Peter? OK, I'm willing to read them. And I can show many that say the opposite, you know..

 

[WarriorAngel]

Why what? I asked for some explanation of how it can be that no one knows that God wants us to know. That's what you wrote in your point #1.



It might occur IF there were a Pope and if Jesus meant for Peter to pass anything on. As you know, he didn't speak of either of those occurring.

Maybe we should have that verse to look at which deals with the Chair of Moses.

Matthew 23
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Matthew 23
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

I would doubt those characters are sitting on thrones in Revelation

Matthew 23:2 saying, "On of the Moses seat/kaqedraV <2515> are seated/ekaqisan <2523> (5656) the Scribes and the Pharisees

Revelation 20:4 And I perceived thrones, and they are seated/ekaqisan <2523> (5656) on them, and judgment/krima <2917> was given to them and the souls ones having been "beheaded" thru the testimony of Jesus,

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Before NewMan99 became so offended by the term "denomination" that he took his ball and went home (to use a common baseball image), refusing to discuss his "witnesses," his point was that the solitary Scripture the RCC alone so interprets to support it's own view of this is fruitless to this issue, thus we need to look to "witnesses" (evidently to Jesus giving these "keys" to Peter and what that means). He promised to provide this, and these witnesses would indicate that the RCC understanding of The Catholic Papacy would be evidence from 30 AD on.

What we finally got was 5 "witnesses" (turns out, none were witnesses at all), but of those before the 4th century, none of them said anything about the Papacy. At all. What we all discovered is that NewMan99 interpreted these quotes (largely though his own unanswered questions of himself) that they might have been implying something (which, as it turns out, didn't have to do with the papacy anyway).


The Catholic Papacy may well be the most divisive issue in Christianity (certainly among the very top ones). One ______________ (insert whatever word for denomination that is liked) embraces The Catholic view of the Catholic Papacy and that's the Catholic Church, and no other does. It splits us pretty much right down the middle. And this was going on CENTURIES before Luther was born (this one can't be blamed on Luther or the "Protestants!").


So, since it is agreed the RCC's unique (and some would say self-serving) interpretation of one solitary verse doens't get us anywhere, and NewMan99 revealed that the historical evidence actually seems to support the Protestant view and undermines the Catholic one, then how do we substantiate the unique RCC view as correct? Do we just ignore history, ignore NewMan99's own admission that we have no evidence before 90 AD of any such creation of this office at least 60 years earlier (and it is evident, there's none in 90 AD either) - and say, "well, it's just GOTTA be dogmatic fact because one _____________ says it is - the same one that uses the self-same to argue that IT is the sole authority, infallible, powerful, and is right cuz it is so its right here, too?


No one denies that this is believed by all those in the RCC that are doing what the RCC requires of them and accepting it "with docility" because the RCC requires them to do so. I think we all understand that. That's not the issue. The issue is: is it true? A DOGMA that so powerfully divides Christianity needs more than: "I believe it's true because my ______________ (insert preferred word for denomination) requires that I accept with docility that it alone is infallible, supreme and powerful because it alone says that it alone is" (even though, as NewMan99 pointed out, the historic evidence suggests the Protestant and not Catholic view).



This is an important topic! One of THE most in all contemporary Christianity vis-a-vis Christian unity and ecumenism. What is the substantiation for RCC's unique position for it itself? Something of a nature that it would accept from non-RC's (and, "its true because what I say is true and I say it's true" would not be).




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Why did He specifically [with ceremony] for the others who were witnesses to the exchange...
Hand the keys to Peter at all - if it was moot point?

No one said it was a moot point. I said there is another meaning. A key opens something, and that's the usual symbolism. Peter, as we know, opened the world to the Gospel by preaching that miraculous sermon on Pentecost that brought in thousands of converts for the first time. No othe explanation of "keys" fits the facts.

 

[WarriorAngel]

No, I have not made any suppositions that I'm asking your to agree to before we even begin -- Popes, successions, Chairs, Peter's keys, etc. All of these and more you take for granted as proven and correct before we know that they are. If you want to try to prove them true, be aware that there is plenty of evidence that other meanings are more credible and Apostolic.


That's simply not true. Many ECFs said that someone other than Peter was the head, or that there was no such individual leader.


From the time of Peter or later after the Papacy deveoloped? And I can show many that say the opposite.

How does one get more Apostolic than the fathers of the Church - who defend the ONE Church?
If these men were not Apostolic in succession, then we have absolutely no record of any Church existing ever after - but then how did scriptures carry on in - if no one was guarding them?


So - did Peter condemn every generation after him - if he condemned those who wrested the scriptures for themselves [for all generations to read BTW] but then they left no one to ensure they would not wrest them?

Logic means one address leads to a purpose.
If the Apostles had purpose then the Church still exists and maintains what the successors have since claimed.

I read many writings - not one single ecf ever said anyone else was more than Rome, Peter, the Popes, or the Chair of Peter.

Show me where you read this, and i will read it.
And Tertullian who left the Church - after a certain date in time, would not count.
Obviously he left for a sect that died off because it didnt contain truth.
BUT even he admitted to the Pope's authority before leaving.

 

[WarriorAngel]

No one said it was a moot point. I said there is another meaning. A key opens something, and that's the usual symbolism. Peter, as we know, opened the world to the Gospel by preaching that miraculous sermon on Pentecost that brought in thousands of converts for the first time. No othe explanation of "keys" fits the facts.

They all taught the Gospel.
But they all were not handed the keys or even one key.

 

[Albion]

Matthew 23
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

So he's recommending that they follow THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES!

Not some Pope who didn't even exist. That's exactly what the verse has Jesus saying--"The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are the authorized interpreters of Moses' Law. So you must obey and follow everything they tell you to do."

Moses' law is replaced by the age of Grace in our times, as you know. But Jesus is certainly not speaking of anyone but those whom he specifically says to follow--the teachers of the Law (scribes) and the Pharisees. And the chair isn't even mentioned.

 

[Trento]

No one said it was a moot point. I said there is another meaning. A key opens something, and that's the usual symbolism. Peter, as we know, opened the world to the Gospel by preaching that miraculous sermon on Pentecost that brought in thousands of converts for the first time. No othe explanation of "keys" fits the facts.

It is well known that Matthew (unlike Mark or Luke) has a preference for the plural (e.g. Matt 4:3; 8:26; 12:46; 15:36).
Also, in Matt 16, we are dealing with a Heaven-earth relationship, rather than a mere earthly kingdom (as in Isaiah 22). Thus, Peter holds two keys: one Heavenly and one earthly, since his Master is a two-fold King: both the earthly successor to David and the eternal King of Heaven.
In Matt 16 refer to Christ's juxtaposition of the "Kingdom of Heaven" vs. the "gates of hell." We also see this in St. Ephraem the Syrian AD 350, who writes:

"Thee, O Simon Peter, will I proclaim the blessed, who holds the Keys which the Spirit made. A great and ineffable word that he binds and loosens those in Heaven and those under the earth..." (Ephraem, Asseman. Bibl. Orient. t. i. p. 95) in Colin Lindsay, Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 31

Matt 16 is not merely about the identity of Jesus. Rather, it is about who the people say that Jesus is.
In Matt 16:13, Jesus asks "Who do the people say that I am?" These are the people of Israel, who do not know that He is their King.
Jesus then asks His disciples (His "royal entourage," if you will): "Who do you say that I am?" And, in reply, Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Messiah: the promised successor to David -- the King of Israel !
Thus, Jesus makes Peter the prime minister of that remnant of Israel which will believe in Him: the Church. Here, we must note that the Greek word for "Church" ("Ekklesia") means "those who are called out." Thus, "the Church" will comprise those members of Israel who will accept Jesus as their Messiah/King. This will be Jesus' House of David. And, within that House, Peter holds the prime minister's Keys (e.g. Isaiah 22
​

 

[Albion]

They all taught the Gospel.
But they all were not handed the keys or even one key.

Sure, they all taught the Gospel. But they didn't open the world's eyes to the Gospel in the dramatic way that Peter did--with a miracle, no less--at Pentecost. That event brought thousands in to the church during the course of a single day, and from all over the Roman world. That is unparalled by anything the other Apostles did.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wonder where all the Orthodoxs are?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

How does one get more Apostolic than the fathers of the Church

More Apostolic would be the Apostles.

Yes, we all know that the RCC interprets the snippets it chooses from the men it labels as Catholic Church Fathers so as to agree with whatever the RCC says. I'm not sure it's much different with Lutheran Church Fathers or Reformed Church Fathers. So?

We've already seen that actually the snippets of the RCC from the Fathers of the RCC don't support the position of the RCC AT ALL. Not at all. Not unless the RCC's own view is imputed into what they said as "implied" by words they never said. AND we have seen our Orthodox friends quote other Church Fathers that actually undermines the Catholic view.

So - did Peter condemn every generation after him - if he condemned those who wrested the scriptures for themselves but then they left no one to ensure they would not wrest them?

Well, IF your problem is with self insisting that only self may interpret Scripture and Tradition, then your problem is with the RCC. Read what the RCC insists in its catechism # 85.

I read many writings - not one single ecf ever said anyone else was more than Rome, Peter, the Popes, or the Chair of Peter.

There seems to be one voice on the Catholic side that agrees there's no evidence, no substantiation for the remarkable, divisive, self-serving claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone.

Show me where you read this

No one needs to show you ANYTHING because no other claims for self alone what the RCC claims for self alone (the LDS once did but has really backed off from that in recent years). Friend, it's the RCC's dogma. It's the RCC alone that insists its a biblical and historic FACT for the RCC alone. The "ball" is entirely in the court of the RCC to substantiated it as true. YOU are the one who needs to show us the where....


NewMan99 - I expect the most esteemed Catholic poster and a Catholic Apologist - said he would give us the witnesses, but they proved to not be witnesses at all and said nothing about The Catholic Papacy. Since he decided to leave the discussion and not discuss his "witnesses," I KNOW we'd all welcome another assuming the task! I certainly would!






.