What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

[ivebeenshown]

Thank you for your post.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Actually, where in the bible does it tell us who can give thanks for bread and cup, thank you.

Ah... There you would be stuck if you are a sola-scripturist. The bible itself does not mention it directly. It's part of the 'laying on of hands'.

Forgive me...

 

[razeontherock]

This particular application of 'laying on of hands,' did Jesus teach it or did it start later?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This particular application of 'laying on of hands,' did Jesus teach it or did it start later?

Christ Jesus taught it. The sacraments were taught by Christ. It is part of what he revealed.

The Holy Eucharist is the very center of the litugical ceremony that Christ wanted those who had be baptised to participate in. It is simple yet profound.

Forgive me...

 

[razeontherock]

Thanks for the answer! Now I know not everything He said was written down, but how does that part of Tradition go? (I'm assuming this would be w/ a capital T?)

 

[boswd]

Ah... There you would be stuck if you are a sola-scripturist. The bible itself does not mention it directly. It's part of the 'laying on of hands'.

Forgive me...

makes you wonder how a Sola scripturist would fare if they went back in time of the first 3 centuries when there was no NT to use.

they would think the entire first Christians were nothing but extra and unbiblical heretics

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Thanks for the answer! Now I know not everything He said was written down, but how does that part of Tradition go? (I'm assuming this would be w/ a capital T?)

What do you mean by 'how does it go'? Sorry, I'm being dense. Not following what you are asking.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

makes you wonder how a Sola scripturist would fare if they went back in time of the first 3 centuries when there was no NT to use.

they would think the entire first Christians were nothing but extrabiblical heretics

LOL!

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The passage where Peter is given the keys is part of Jesus' response to his recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, as is the declaration that he is the rock. Thus the obvious suggestion is that the keys are based on this recognition. I.e. that the keys to the kingdom are the Gospel, although I don't object to including also the proper administration of the sacraments. Note Mat 23:13 where the Pharisees are said to lock people out of the kingdom, by improper teaching. If this is true, it's not so much authority as responsibility. Proper preaching of the Gospel and administration of the sacrament is the primary way people come to salvation, so where it's not done people may be locked out of the kingdom, unless God intervenes.

Binding and loosing has a Jewish background. The Word commentary says "In its primary meaning, the phrase “binding and loosing” refers to the allowing and disallowing of certain conduct, based on an interpretation of the commandments of the Torah, and thus it concerns the issue of whether or not one is in proper relationship to the will of God (contrast the reference to the Pharisees’ misuse of their authority [note implied keys!] in 23:13)." Peter, and by extension the Church, is responsible for applying Jesus' teachings to current circumstances, and thus interpreting the Gospel, as the rabbis did the Torah. Again, this would not be the authority to arbitrarily include or exclude people, but a responsibility to interpret Jesus' words wisely. Obviously applying the Gospel to practical situations is a companion to preaching the Gospel. The comment about being bound in heaven suggests that God gives the Church a certain leeway in doing this interpretation, so that it may make actual decisions about what is proper and improper (although it's hard to believe that Jesus would intend this as a completely arbitrary authority).

I would say that the keys and loosing and binding are a responsibility of the leaders of every church community, and that all leaders are accountable for how they are used.

Well said.

Forgive me...

 

[razeontherock]

It does my heart good to see an EO able to give his 'Amen' to hedrick's post! That's what I see from Scripture, but that doesn't mean I want to expose myself to complacency. My other option is to learn more, which is why I asked "how does this Tradition go?"

More specifically, did Jesus teach giving thanks and/or blessing the bread and wine as an aspect of laying on of hands after His resurrection? To whom did He teach it? These are certainly aspects of Tradition I would value highly!! (Along with some other difficult and pointed things, like Jesus' own view on His Mother's coping with His Passion, and the beheading of John the Baptist just as 2 examples)

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It does my heart good to see an EO able to give his 'Amen' to hedrick's post! That's what I see from Scripture, but that doesn't mean I want to expose myself to complacency. My other option is to learn more, which is why I asked "how does this Tradition go?"

More specifically, did Jesus teach giving thanks and/or blessing the bread and wine as an aspect of laying on of hands after His resurrection? To whom did He teach it? These are certainly aspects of Tradition I would value highly!! (Along with some other difficult and pointed things, like Jesus' own view on His Mother's coping with His Passion, and the beheading of John the Baptist just as 2 examples)

Anything that Christ taught the Apostles is capital 'T' tradition. The truths about such things are considered DOGMA. IOW~ Considered to be important toward salvation.

Think of these teachings as a senior doctor teaching new doctor something that they had not done before. The Church teaches that the sacraments are medicinal.

Christ taught the Apostles after HIS death and before HIS ascension. (40 days.)

What we have from that time of teaching is never really spoken of in scripture. This particular training was meant to be hands on... in person training, to be passed on from generation to generation as Anamnesis. (Every generation being just as involved as the generation before.)

The correct Theology of the consecration and sanctification of time were taught here. (THEY WERE REVEALED BY CHRIST)

We have the Primitive Nucleus of the Eucharistic Pray and a Synaxis.

The greeting.
The kiss of peace.
The offeratory.
The rinsing of the Hands.
The imposistion of the hands on the elements.
The Eucharistic dialogue and Prayer.
The Amen.
The Lords prayer.
The fraction.
The communion.
The Ablutions.

These things were taught there.

Is this what you meant?

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by narnia59

James was Bishop of Jerusalem. Head of the council -- I see no evidence for that. The dispute over circumcision was between James and Paul. James was in the wrong. After Peter silences the debate with his testimomy, James concedes his position and brings it in line with the view of Peter and Paul.
​

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"


I don't see anything like your claim. Source? And why does RC need to minimize this interaction between Peter and Paul?

My source is the Bible.

I don't minimize that interaction at all; it's key to understanding the whole dynamic at the council in Jerusalem. This is where we clearly see that James is the opposition -- the one whose church is going around stirring up the trouble and preaching that the Gentiles had to be circumcised. Paul rightly confronts Peter because his behavior is not consistent with his position. Peter knows the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but he is letting the controversy affect the way he behaves, and his behavior is causing scandal. One might wonder if Peter does the same to Paul when right after the council agrees that the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, he nonetheless requires Timothy to be in order to accompany him.

The decision that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised was made well before the council ever takes place, and by Peter acting alone and by direct revelation from God. It's recorded in Acts 10, when Peter receives the vision of nothing being 'unclean', and God directs Cornelius to Peter by a vision. Peter agrees to go with Cornelius, preaches the Gospel by which the Holy Spirit falls upon the Gentiles. Peter then makes the decision (acting alone) that they are to be baptized.

The controversy that ensues is stirred up by James and the church in Jerusalem (note in Acts 15:1 the men who are stirring up the issue are from Judea, plus the reference to James in the Galatians passage you cited). So now they all gather as recorded in Acts 15. Paul and Barnabas attempt to witness to their work with the Gentiles, to no avail. The Pharisees are still clamoring that the Gentiles have to be circumcised, and there is a great deal of debate (verses 4-7). In verses 7-11 Peter takes the floor and relates his position and what he had witnessed and done. In verse 12, it is noted that after Peter spoke, the assembly then kept silent and actually listened to Paul and Barnabas. The tide turned.

When James finally speaks in verses 13-21 with his 'decision' -- this is not rendering a decision for the entire church. If he had that authority, all the Gentiles would have been lining up for circumcision. It is his decision to call of the dogs, to concede his prior position, to bring his church in Jerusalem in line with Peter. Many make a big deal over the fact that James spoke last. Of course he did. When he finally conceded, the debate was over.

 

[narnia59]

Actually, where in the bible does it tell us who can give thanks for bread and cup, thank you.

The command to do this in memory of Christ was given to only the apostles. "Do this" -- what Jesus had done for them, they were to do for the church community.

 

[ivebeenshown]

makes you wonder how a Sola scripturist would fare if they went back in time of the first 3 centuries when there was no NT to use.

they would think the entire first Christians were nothing but extra and unbiblical heretics

If you wanna go there we're all unscriptural heretics. :o

 

[razeontherock]

Christ taught the Apostles after HIS death and before HIS ascension. (40 days.)

What we have from that time of teaching is never really spoken of in scripture. This particular training was meant to be hands on... in person training, to be passed on from generation to generation as Anamnesis. (Every generation being just as involved as the generation before.)

The correct Theology of the consecration and sanctification of time were taught here. (THEY WERE REVEALED BY CHRIST)

We have the Primitive Nucleus of the Eucharistic Pray and a Synaxis.

The greeting.
The kiss of peace.
The offeratory.
The rinsing of the Hands.
The imposistion of the hands on the elements.
The Eucharistic dialogue and Prayer.
The Amen.
The Lords prayer.
The fraction.
The communion.
The Ablutions.

These things were taught there.

Thank you. Is there a good source of what he taught in these 40 days written down anywhere?

 

[razeontherock]

key to understanding the whole dynamic at the council in Jerusalem. This is where we clearly see that James is the opposition. Paul rightly confronts Peter because his behavior is not consistent with his position. Peter knows the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but he is letting the controversy affect the way he behaves, and his behavior is causing scandal.

The decision that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised was made well before the council ever takes place, and by Peter acting alone and by direct revelation from God.

In verse 12, it is noted that after Peter spoke, the assembly then kept silent and actually listened to Paul and Barnabas. The tide turned.

Thank you. I'd seen those elements, but never pieced them together before. Looks kosher to me

I still think it's over-stating Peter's role in at least 2 ways:

I would never say a vision from G-d is in any way anyone "acting alone." Yes Peter got the vision of the net, as well as the interpretation; but it was G-d who had been giving the Gentiles the Spirit so who could contradict the conclusion?

It was Peter's weakness that would've allowed James to continue his influence. It was Paul who put Peter in check. Doesn't sound like "papal authority" to me. Sounds like leadership via a plurality of equals, w/ signs and wonders confirming the Word. Seems like just what we need today!

 

[narnia59]

Thank you. I'd seen those elements, but never pieced them together before. Looks kosher to me

I still think it's over-stating Peter's role in at least 2 ways:

I would never say a vision from G-d is in any way anyone "acting alone." Yes Peter got the vision of the net, as well as the interpretation; but it was G-d who had been giving the Gentiles the Spirit so who could contradict the conclusion?

It was Peter's weakness that would've allowed James to continue his influence. It was Paul who put Peter in check. Doesn't sound like "papal authority" to me. Sounds like leadership via a plurality of equals, w/ signs and wonders confirming the Word. Seems like just what we need today!

Glad you liked the 'piecing'.

By "acting alone", I mean in reference to making a decision without the need to consult the other apostles. Yes, the entire thing was facilitated by God, via direct vision to Peter. Ironically, quite like the revelation the Father gives Peter regarding who Christ is that results in Christ giving him the keys to the kingdom and telling him he's the rock he's going to build his church on.

You have a common misconception of the Catholic view of papal authority. It has no dependency on the behavior of the individual (some have been quite rascals) but is a teaching charism. Two examples given where God communicates directly to Peter (another is when he knows that Anani'as has lied about the money he's given). I'm aware of others receiving personal visions (like Paul's conversion encounter with Christ). I'm not aware of any others though that received visions/communications from God regarding doctrinal issues like the deity of Christ or whether the Gentiles could be brought into the church. Kind of big tickets items there. I could be wrong -- maybe there were others. Can you think of any?

The Catholic view is that both a plurality of bishops and the Pope are needed, which aligns with the separation of Peter as shown in the Gospels along with a respect for the authority of the college of bishops as well. Both share the charism of infallibility when teaching the faith and preserving it from heresy. Without Peter, the chance of schism occuring between Paul and James was pretty high, don't you think? Would either have conceded on their own? It was Peter's weight that shifted the balance.

 

[Fireinfolding]

There was also weight on James pointing out the agreement on the prophets concerning the agreement the prophets had with Peter in Acts 15:15 as the church is built on both would it not?

 

[narnia59]

There was also weight on James pointing out the agreement on the prophets concerning the agreement the prophets had with Peter in Acts 15:15 as the church is built on both would it not?

Weight for who? The person needing to be convinced was James. Perhaps it was finally dawning on him what that Scripture meant....

 

[Fireinfolding]

Weight for who? The person needing to be convinced was James. Perhaps it was finally dawning on him what that Scripture meant....

Thats whats scripture is for (convincing) and persuading, could be sure