Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Standing Up]

WHy was Peter the only one given the keys...plural?

Why didnt He just hand them to them all and state they were for everyone?

Because He made a point to handing them to Peter because He was fulfilling the prophecy of Isaias.

There are not many stewards - only one.

Those are the key of David or something else?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

BUT then CJ can conclude something in absense of anything to counter it?

1. That's YOUR argument, YOUR apologetic: that the RCC's own "Fathers" SILENCE proves its own claims for itself to be dogmatic fact.

2. Friend, I'm not the one claiming anything for myself alone. The burden of proof for this extremely divisive issue isn't me. It's the RCC making this claim. As DOGMA.

There is nothing that countered any claims that the Pope was not who we claim he is.

Where's your proof that there are not 6 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor? If you have none, does that prove that it is a dogmatic fact that there are? If you won't accept your apologetic for me and my statement about the furry brown critters - IF you reject that as evidence of a dogmatic fact - when why should we accept exactly the same apologetic for The Catholic Papacy?


And your argument that none of the quotes the RCC chooses from the men it chooses is interpreted by itself alone to deny the Papacy - thus they MUST have all accepted the Dogma of the Papacy is the same as me arguing that they all believed that Toyotas are the best cars on the road because the RCC has no snippets from any of them saying anything otherwise. NO CATHOLIC on the planet would allow such "proof" from a Protestant, we'd be laughed at for even suggesting that.

CJ claims that because of the absense of anyone stating the Pope exists, that we can conclude he didnt exist.

Quote me where I said that.

SO with absense, we have fact?

... that seems to be your whole argument. Because the RCC has chosen no snippets from the men it has chosen that it interprets has saying there was no Papacy, ERGO it's a dogmatic fact that there was. That's YOUR apologetic, not mine!

JUST because the ECF's didn't sit down and write a full discertation that the Pope existed and he was the Church leader - that we need conclude the Pope didnt exist until the 4th Century?

You have our positions reversed, my friend. YOU are the one saying that DOGMA is proven true because of SILENCE.

But why then did St Irenaeus and Eusebius give a list to the successors if they didnt exist? OR if the Pope didnt matter????

What Ireneus said (according to NewMan99; perhaps you have another RCC snippet in mind) is that the congregation in Rome once included Peter AND PAUL. Nothin' about the Papacy at all. Nothing about any office that Jesus founded. Nothing about any "keys" given in some unique sense exclusively to Peter. Nothing about the bishop of a specific, singular diocese THEREFORE being the SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful, lord over all Christians and the Vicar of Christ. Nope. Peter AND PAUL were associated with the congregation in Rome. No one disputes that; let's return to our discussion of the Papacy, okay?




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Isaias 22
[prophecy to the fall of the Pharisees and the Kingship of the Lord Jesus]

17 Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. 19 And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

Jesus possesses the Authority over man - whereas the Pharisees once held.
IT is then that Jesus taking the keys - which HE removed from the Pharisees and the Chair of Moses and hands them over to Peter...

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

This was the ceremonial exchanging of the keys from the authority of the Chair of Moses to the Authority of Peter who will then become the 'New Covenantal Chair' to which all authority was given to Christ as He says the Father gave Him, but He hands it to Peter...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

WHy was Peter the only one given the keys...plural?

Why didnt He just hand them to them all and state they were for everyone?

Why are there 8 planets in our solar system and not 20? Or 2?

Why do most girls seem to like chocolate?

Why do Americans wear their wedding rings on their left hand?

Why do we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?


Friend, anyone can ask questions. But you questions (and my questions) are not substantiation for the extremely important, highly divisive DOGMA of the RCC about The Papacy.

It's the RCC's dogma. Itself alone for itself alone. A matter of highest certainty and importance. Thus, the "burden of proof" lies with the RCC. And, "where do all lost socks go?" might be an interesting question, but it's just not substantiation for the Dogma of the Papacy. I hope you see my point.

Nor is silence. In fact, silence would MORE NATURALLY suggest that such did not exist or was not believed - although I agree, it doesn't substantiate such. Just because no RCC "Father" said that Toyotas are NOT the best cars on the road does not prove that THEREFORE it was a dogma in the early church that Toyotas are the best cars on the road. I hope you follow that.




.

 

[JimfromOhio]

To me, I don't care which "Church" or "Tradition" claim the "rights" to be connected as part of "first Church" (i.e. Roman Catholic). The Greek word for church is ekklesia, which means "an assembly of called-out ones. " The church is made up of people called by God to be His children. We have become united with all other believers by faith in Christ, who said, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Jesus meant He would gather together a body of believers. He wasn't talking about organizations; He was talking about people. We who know and love Him are the living church that has been born into the family of God by the Holy Spirit.

For years, in my mind, RCC is just Roman Church because "catholic" in a sense spiritually universal since the day Church began. Our true faith of the Holy catholic (universal) and apostolic church that has always existed whether it was called Israel or Christian (first at Antioch). The true Apostolic Succession was not of office but of doctrine. There is no succession of apostolic gifts because they were nontransferable commission given to the Apostles directly by Jesus Christ. When they died, it was over. They have no permanent activity in the life of the church. There is apostolic succession in the context that the truth entrusted to the apostles is now passed on to others such as bishops and elders. In 1 Timothy 3:15: The church is "...the pillar and support of the truth." This is apostolic succession. We are proclaiming the truth that was given to the apostles and prophets and has been passed down by God's grace through history to us today. We are called to be in the line of apostolic succession. A truth has been communicated. It is contained in this word. Its focus is Christ and what He is doing in the church today. That is what this church is about. It is about truth.

Through Jesus Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have apostolic succession, but it is not in a line of men who pass along authority from one to another. It is the passing on of apostolic truth that goes from one generation to the next, in the context of the ministry of the truth in local churches around the world.

The main strife between Catholics and others is really about claiming (in the flesh) about being the True Church.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Isaias 22

17 Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. 19 And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

... a popular Catholic apologetic, albeit an AMAZING stretch. Now, even though there's no connection to Peter here and thus seems moot, I have some questions (to be answered exclusively from the text):

1. What, exactly was this "key" and what exactly did it enable for the sole receiver of such ALONE?

2. What happened to this "key" when that mentioned above receiver died?

3. Where does it say that the receiver of this key is to give it away to the College of Cardinals of the RCC, and then that the College of Cardinals (now having it) is to give this "key" to all whom it elects as the bishop of the singular, specific diocese of Rome, and being the bishop there means that THEREFORE he is the infallible, supreme, powerful lord over all vicar of God?

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

Let's assume that the totally unique "twist" that the RCC alone gives to this Scripture is true. Jesus gave the keys to Peter - exclusively. Then, we know where they are: in the cold, dead hands of Peter. For according to the RCC's interpretation, PETER got them - not the RCC College of Cardinals. Where is the verse that says Peter gave away what Jesus entrusted to him and that he gave them to the College of Cardinals of the singular RCC? Ah, I think the RCC's view actually means IT doesn't have those keys - and nor does the Pope. BTW, it also means that we can't pray the petition of the Lord's Prayer about WE forgiving others, and a whole lot more.

NewMan99 was right that the unique RCC interpretation of this verse doesn't get us anywhere, which is why he turned our attention to the "witnesses" (which proved to not be witnesses at all). But, it turns out, they actually support the idea of a slowly evolving development of this view within the RCC with no connection to Jesus, Peter, Paul or any Apostle.





.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Thou art Peter and upon this rock i will build My Church [call out].

It doesnt matter what the terms used are - it is upon Peter whom the keys were given and whomever the Church is - Peter is the one Christ built upon.

The name Peter wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate change of his name to correspond to the fact it was him - a rock - whom was being built upon.

You cannot change the scriptures.
EVEN protestant scholars can see Peter as the ONE WHOM GOD gave authority to to keep the keys.

Him, no one else.
No one else at all.

I give thee the keys....what THOU [Peter] bind is bound also in Heaven.

No short order.

Whatever THOU [Peter] looses will be loosed in Heaven.

Do you think Jesus did this for fun? Said this for no reason?
Its as specific as possible.

Isaias says He [Jesus] will be taking the authority off the Pharisees and it will be given to Jesus, WHo makes it known to all the witnesses that He is handing that authority to Peter...

WHO is now on the New Covenant CHAIR whereas Moses Chair once was the Chair of authority.

Its as obvious as it can be.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are not many stewards - only one.

Actually, except in parables, the word "steward" never appears in the singular anywhere in the Bible - it's always in the plural. And never in reference to the Papacy or the diocese of Rome, or to anyone as SUPERIOR over anyone or to anyone as infallible.




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Then, we know where they are: in the cold, dead hands of Peter

Then why did Jesus say to obey the Chair of Moses and those who sit on it?
THAT was evident that the successors share the same authority.

Peter's successors share the same authority as those who were successors to Moses.

Unless Jesus didnt know what He was saying when He said to obey those sitting on the Chair of Moses.

Moses was dead - yet the authority on earth lived on.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thou art Peter and upon this rock i will build My Church

AGAIN, let's assume this unique interpretation of the RCC is correct (no matter how self-serving). Then, we know where the keys are, don't we? In the cold, dead hands of Peter. And you cannot pray the petition "...as we forgive those who sin against us" since only one can forgive - and he's dead.

Even assuming the unique spin of the RCC alone on this, where does it say that Peter is to immediately give the keys that Jesus just entrusted to HIM ALONE to the College of Cardinals of the RCC, and that they are not to keep them either but to give them to WHOEVER it elects as the bishop of the diocese of Rome? And where does it say that having these "keys" makes Peter (much less, the current Pope!) the INFALLIBLE, SUPREME, powerful, authority and lord over all BECUASE he happens to be the current bishop of a particular diocese?

Him, no one else.

No one else at all.

Then the Papacy is not true.

Isaias says He [Jesus] will be taking the authority off the Pharisees and it will be given to Jesus, WHo makes it known to all the witnesses that He is handing that authority to Peter...

Quote me where Isaiah states that...
Perhaps YOU say that, but did Isaiah?
YOU said we cannot change Scripture; I agree. That applies to you, too. Now, quote where Isaiah stated what you said he said.




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Peter was given the 'keys' which is plural.
So long as the Pope is holding all the keys [until the consumation of time] then the Church who follows him is correct in the doctrines manifested thru the Advocate.

This is written in all the writings that concern Rome, and the Pope. [Which are interchangeable]

Just because we hold opinions doesnt mean all opinions are true.
If you prefer to not follow the one who holds the keys and sits of the Chair of Peter, does not negate the fact the entire Church thru ALL ages have. And we cannot now disregard the truth of the meaning of those keys handed to one man.

Self serving?

It's interesting to note, its hardest to obey someone - than it is to serve the self.
Obedience is the most difficult task, as is being the one who must be obeyed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

HERE it is again CJ...
Read it with the knowledge that the Pharisees sit in authority - check.
That they will fall when Christ comes - check.
That they will lose the authority of being the guardian of the Lord's doctrines and will no longer have power over God's Kingdom because it shows the keys going to Jesus - check.
AND then we know what Jesus did with those keys....and wording to Peter that THOU -he can loose and bind.


HERE it is again...

Isaias 22
17 Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. 19 And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

 

[JimfromOhio]

The "keys" symbolize the authority to open the way of salvation through the preaching of the gospel to all those who are bound in darkness and sin. Peter was first entrusted with the keys because he was the first to give this confession of faith in Jesus and was instrumental in initially opening the door of salvation to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), as well as the Gentiles at Cornelius' house (Acts 10). This is not about RCC but rather believers of Jesus Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

HERE it is again CJ...
Read it with the knowledge that the Pharisees sit in authority - check.
That they will fall when Christ comes - check.
That they will lose the authority of being the guardian of the Lord's doctrines and will no longer have power over God's Kingdom because it shows the keys going to Jesus - check.
AND then we know what Jesus did with those keys....and wording to Peter that THOU -he can loose and bind.


HERE it is again...

Isaias 22
17 Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. 19 And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

So you're making the association between the keys of the kingdom and the key of David, right?

So what does this mean: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

IOW, Jesus still has those keys. In Mt. Jesus says, will give--future tense. In Rev. He still has them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

HERE it is again CJ...

Isaias 22
17 Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. 19 And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

Cool. Here's what you stated,

Isaias says He [Jesus] will be taking the authority off the Pharisees and it will be given to Jesus, WHo makes it known to all the witnesses that He is handing that authority to Peter...
​

Again, quote me where Isaiah states that...
YOU said we cannot change Scripture; I agree. That applies to you, too.
So, quote where Isaiah stated what you said he said.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just because we hold opinions doesnt mean all opinions are true

On that, we all agree!
Friend, we know what the opinion is of the RCC alone for itself alone.
We all know about the Dogma of the Papacy.
The issue before us is this: is it true?



Now, we all know that the RCC has not chosen snippets from its chosen "fathers" that it interprets as DENYING all this, but that doesn't make it dogmatic fact - anymore than it's dogmatic fact that there are 6 billion furry brown creatures on the Moon of Endor cuz I say so and no RCC "father" denied that, and nor more than my claiming Toyotas are the best cars as a point of dogma and that must be true because no RCC "father" is quoted by the RCC has teaching otherwise.


In case you've not been reading all the posts in this thread, NO ONE is questioning the faith of ANYONE (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim or otherwise) in this thread. No one is saying ANYTHING about the sincerity or itegrity of anyone who believes anything (or not). And certainly NO ONE is arguing that ANYTHING is impossible. The issue in our little sub-disscussion here (going on for about 30 pages now, lol) is singular: Is the RCC Dogma of the Papacy TRUE? And for the past 25 pages, it's been on this: does the historic evidence confirm such from 30 AD on?

It's interesting to note, its hardest to obey someone - than it is to serve the self. Obedience is the most difficult task, as is being the one who must be obeyed.

I know the RCC demands that all just accept "with docility" WHATEVER it says (CCC 87). What does it submit to? To what is it obedient? It claims to be INFALLIBLE and thus unaccountable (at least in some areas and under some conditions). And the ONLY arbiter it acknowledges is itself. And the ONLY "rule" it acknowledges is the Scripture in its own heart as its own self alone interprets, the 'tradition' of its own self as its own self chooses and interprets, and the 'magisterium' of its own self as its own self chooses and the opinions of its own self. Doesn't sound like "submission" to me.... But that's another subject for another day and thread. We're talking about the OPPOSITE of that: Why the Pope submits to nothing but is the SUPREME, INFALLIBLE, POWERFUL AUTHORITY over all. This thread is about THAT. It is, probably, the single most divisive dogma in all of Christianity - and was so for centuries before Luther was born (so can't blame this one on the Protestants, lol). We're discussing the historical evidence for such in the early years, especially the first century.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

First I propose another question. [so far havent had any answered]

Anyway - when did the Church suddenly erect the Pope into an office?
Who ever wrote that 'We need a Pope - a leader - so let's put one in place...'..?
Because to hypothesize that there was not a successor to Peter even after reading St Irenaeus [AD 175] and Eusebius who already showed the line of the successors because it was important...
I would like to see proof that there was NO successor.
AND that suddenly the whole Church just accepted a leader.

Where is that written?

So you're making the association between the keys of the kingdom and the key of David, right?

So what does this mean: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

IOW, Jesus still has those keys. In Mt. Jesus says, will give--future tense. In Rev. He still has them.

IF you continue onwards in that verse - you will see that the one they refer to has little faith but holds on even to the end.
Did Jesus have little faith?
Just wondering...
Revelation speaks of Peter's successors who will be here til the end.

Cool. Here's what you stated,

Isaias says He [Jesus] will be taking the authority off the Pharisees and it will be given to Jesus, WHo makes it known to all the witnesses that He is handing that authority to Peter...
​

Again, quote me where Isaiah states that...
YOU said we cannot change Scripture; I agree. That applies to you, too.
So, quote where Isaiah stated what you said he said.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

AND here is what the St Chrysostom stated:


For in proof that for this intent He permitted it, that He might amend this in him, hear what He says, I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. For this He said sharply reproving him, and showing that his fall was more grievous than the rest, and needed more help. For the matters of blame were two; both that he gainsaid; and, that he set himself before the other; or rather a third too, namely, that he attributed all to himself.
To cure these things then, He suffered the fall to take place, and for this cause also leaves the others, and addresses Himself earnestly to him. For, Simon, says He, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat; that is, that he may trouble, confound, tempt you; but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not.
And why, if Satan desired all, did He not say concerning all, I have prayed for you? Is it not quite plain that it is this, which I have mentioned before, that it is as reproving him, and showing that his fall was more grievous than the rest, that He directs His words to him?
And wherefore said He not, But I did not suffer it, rather than, I have prayed? He speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He may show His humanity. For He that has built His church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it; He that has given him the keys of Heaven, and has put him in possession of so much authority, and in no manner needed a prayer for these ends (for neither did He say, I have prayed, but with His own authority, I will build my church, and I will give you the keys of Heaven), how should He need to pray, that He might brace up the shaken soul of a single man? Wherefore then did He speak in this way? For the cause which I mentioned, and because of their weakness, for they had not as yet the becoming view of Him.
How then was it that He denied? He said not, that you may not deny, but that your faith fail not, that you perish not utterly. For this came from His care......


CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 82 on Matthew (Chrysostom)


And yet when Peter, the leader of the apostles, said this to Him, Be it far from you Lord, this shall not happen unto You, He rebuked him so severely as to say; get you behind me Satan, you are an offense unto me, for you savour not the things which be of God, but those which be of men: Matthew 16:22-23 although a short time before he had pronounced him blessed. But to escape crucifixion seemed to Him so monstrous a thing, that him who had received the revelation from the Father, him whom He had pronounced blessed, him who had received the keys of Heaven, He called Satan, and an offense, and accused him of not savouring the things which be of God because he said to Him, Be it far from you Lord, this shall never be unto You— namely crucifixion. He then who thus vituperated the disciple, and poured such an invective upon him as actually to call him Satan (after having bestowed such great praise on him), because he said avoid crucifixion, how could He desire not to be crucified? And how after these things when drawing the picture of the good shepherd could He declare this to be the special proof of his virtue, that he should be sacrificed for the sake of the sheep, thus saying, I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep?

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily on "Father, if it be possible..." (Chrysostom)

 

[WarriorAngel]

So what does this mean: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

What's most interesting about when the Rev says that the SPirit speaks to the Churches - you will find these were the original Churches - and if you notice, not only does it rebuke the other Churches to hear, but it also fails to rebuke Rome, but lifts up the one with the keys.

Just an observation i made with Rev.

 

[Standing Up]

So you're making the association between the keys of the kingdom and the key of David, right?

So what does this mean: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

IOW, Jesus still has those keys. In Mt. Jesus says, will give--future tense. In Rev. He still has them.

IF you continue onwards in that verse - you will see that the one they refer to has little faith but holds on even to the end.
Did Jesus have little faith?
Just wondering...
Revelation speaks of Peter's successors who will be here til the end.

-snip-

So, you would agree with the Bible that says, Jesus still has the key?

What's most interesting about when the Rev says that the SPirit speaks to the Churches - you will find these were the original Churches - and if you notice, not only does it rebuke the other Churches to hear, but it also fails to rebuke Rome, but lifts up the one with the keys.

Just an observation i made with Rev.

So, your observation is that Philadelphia has the keys, not the church in Rome?

 

[Standing Up]

First I propose another question. [so far havent had any answered]

Anyway - when did the Church suddenly erect the Pope into an office?
Who ever wrote that 'We need a Pope - a leader - so let's put one in place...'..?
Because to hypothesize that there was not a successor to Peter even after reading St Irenaeus [AD 175] and Eusebius who already showed the line of the successors because it was important...
I would like to see proof that there was NO successor.
AND that suddenly the whole Church just accepted a leader.

Where is that written?


-snip-

We have to be careful with terminology, else we talk past each other. We both assume we love the truth. Here's a summary:

There were two traditions. One was based on the bishopric and one was based on the Apostles. The former developed into the RCC. It obviously helped to be HQ of the Roman Empire and all that entailed.

Circa 100 the office of Pope was developed by Clement of Rome (Aaron's rod bloomed, the others didn't; but the Phoenix resurrection issue of course belies him). He most likely was a Hellenistic Jew. He understood what had happened with the rise and fall of OT priesthood and what could happen with the new.

The battle had begun between Rome and the Quartodecimans. Rome held to celebrating a Sunday resurrection. The Quartodecimans to death on the 14th. (Still no answer on the underlying assumption there!) Rome cited the bishops as authority (Trento pointed out that "bishop is above all others possessing all power and authority"). Quartodecimans cited John, Phillip, and the other Apostles. These are historically valid citations.

All Churches, but Rome, understood the death, burial, and resurrection one way. But, the Palestinian Synod was "the first to comprehend the propriety of ADOPTING the Roman usage". Why? Daniel 9:26- people of the prince to come destroys Jerusalem. The rest of the Churches followed, except for the only verifiable apostolic line. 325ad they declare the quartodecimans heretics. 341ad they (all Churches who trace their lineage to Nicea) excommunicate the Apostles, the quartodecimans, the seven churches of Revelation.

But, then per ?? 300-400 or so a backlash develops against setting up the Chair of Moses, I mean Peter. First among equals. The Assyrians leave. The Oriental Orthodox leave. The Great Schism 1054. The Reformation 1500s. Today, all the old heresies, divisions, schisms, etc. Time to be of one accord again.

Any questions?