Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

Is Peter The Rock of the Church?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 30.6%
  • No

    Votes: 34 69.4%

  • Total voters
    49
Status
Not open for further replies.

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
we dont. You are mis informed.

That what happens most on this forum, people THINK they know what the Church teaches yet in reality they know nothing despite Her teachings being available for all to read.
Yeah yeah...
 
Upvote 0

Woke

Active Member
Supporter
Oct 8, 2019
239
82
71
California
✟38,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let's look at the historical Bible record that shows what Peter did in the church after Christ died.

Peter was the first Christian baptized by Holy Spirit to preach the gospel to Jews who were not attached to Christ already, while seeing Holy Spirit fall on them (Acts chapter 2); then he added the Samaritans to Christ's church who received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17), and finally Peter was the first Christian to preach to Gentiles who received Holy Spirit (Acts 10:34-48).

So, the Bible record certainly shows Christ gave Peter the assignment of being the apostle of Christ to open the way of salvation to all three groups through preaching Christ's gospel. I say this because Christ as leader of the church certainly would know who first preached to each group when he sent his Spirit upon them. When he preached to the Samaritans John was with him sharing that message, and when he preached at Pentecost other Spirit anointed Christians were with him, but it was his speech that moved the Jewish crowd to repent and accept Christ.

It's apparent from scripture that Christ did use Peter for those special jobs, being first to preach the gospel with the result of Holy Spirit falling on all three groups. So, is that what Christ meant by giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, or the Rock Christ built his church on? Your belief or answer to that question shouldn't change your salvation status. Why would it?

Look closely at the rest of Peter's history in the Church. Scriptures in the book of Acts focus on Peter's preaching during the first part of Acts of The Apostles, and Paul's preaching in the second half. Other Christians are included, but the book covers their contributions far less. What about the rest of the New Testament Bible record. When we count all the pages Peter wrote, and then count all the pages Paul wrote, we see the ratio is totally lopsided in favor of Paul's writing. So for the future church Paul was certainly a more prominent leader than Peter, if you accept that their inspired writings constitute part of their church leadership. If you compare the decisions made to correct opinions about Christian living and Christian doctrines, again we see Paul offered much more correction in doctrinal thinking and Christian living in his writings than Peter gave us in scripture. Again, which one wrote more to influence the church after they died Paul or Peter? If Peter was first to lead Christ's church would it not make more sense his writings would be more plentiful, and more insightful than Paul's? The opposite is true. Is there anything in the Bible record where we see Peter leading the whole church with the whole church following him as some sort of exclusive leader? No!

So, you can state what you believe Christ meant by giving Peter the keys of the Kingdom; you can state what you believe Christ meant by, "on this Rock I will build MY Church." Your belief cannot change the historical facts that we have recorded in scripture. Keys, in that scripture is a metaphor. Rock in the other scripture is a metaphor. What is not metaphorical is the historical record in the Bible showing what Peter and other Christians did in his day. If you still believe Peter was the primary leader of the early church show us in scripture where Peter did that and others accepted him as their primary leader on Earth. You won't be able to.

If Peter took on the title and position of their leader he would have usurped Christ's position, per Christ's words not mine, thus becoming an apostate Christian. Christ told him, "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. ... And do not accept
the name of 'leader,' for your Leader is one alone--the Christ. ..." Matthew 23:10

"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Matthew 23:8-9

Peter was not about to take on the name Church Father, papa or Pope, when Matthew who was also an apostle of Christ told the church Christ said not to do that. Had Peter done that the first century Christians, for the most part, would not follow him because they were corrected by Paul not to attach themselves to one man, like Peter or even Paul himself, in preference over another church leader. Paul said none should be that kind of leader in the Christian church.

Paul started that admonition telling them not to do that. "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." 1Corinthians 1:10

"For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s
people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas”[Peter], and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? " 1Corinthians 1:11-13.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Maniel
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, you can state what you believe Christ meant by giving Peter the keys of the Kingdom
All I asked is that people research what KEYS meant in the Davidic Kingdom.
Keys, in that scripture is a metaphor.
really? How do you come to that conclusion? Look what Christ says after He says he will give Peter the KEYS: . "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." I realize that your position must be "it's a metaphor" or else your position crumbles. However, it is clearly not a metaphor.
If Peter took on the title and position of their leader he would have usurped Christ's position,
in the Davidic Kingdom, did the person who had the keys usurp the King's position? The answer is NO. So why would you insist that Peter would usurp Christ's position?

 
  • Winner
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
looks like you are hanging out in the wrong crowd. Every Jew knows what the Keys mean/meant. You new novel ideas are traditions of men. I follow Jesus/scripture while you follow men.

They are not new or novel, you just have not down the BIBLE study to know what they are.

Wonderful. Now that we know you follow Jesus and Scripture, please post for us from the Scriptures the BIBLE doctrine of...…….
1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
2. The Sinlessness of Mary.
3. The Assumption of Mary.
4. The Rosary.
5. The doctrine where Bishops are not permitted to marry.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Concord1968
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus came to save sinners buddy.

He was married, yes! Well spotted. Nothing wrong with that.

Look up why the Catholic church decided that Bishops and priests should be unmarried.

Of course, that could yet change! Who knows.

Is there anything in the Bible that says Peter was not baptised?

NOT SO.

Jesus came to save the house of Israel my friend.

Matthew 15:24...……...
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”.

Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries. As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town. Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people.

It was only after He was crucified by those same Jews that God allowed the Gentiles to come into the body of Christ.

Thus we have in Romans 3:29...…….
“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too”.

Jesus was Married????????

Please post that Scripture for all of us.

The point is that Peter WAS MARRIED and the Scriptures say that for a man to be a bishop, HE has to be a married man. That is what the Bible says and it does not matter one bit what the history is from the RCC.

What I said was that there is NO SCRIPTURAL evidence that Peter was baptized. He may have been but Scripture does not say that.

WHY is that important. Because the RCC teaches YOU that salvation is found in the water of baptism which makes water MORE POWERFUL THAT THE BLOOD OF GOD.

Think about that for a moment!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Concord1968
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wonderful. Now that we know you follow Jesus and Scripture
I follow Jesus and the Church ( Jesus commanded us to follow the Church). Therefore, I follow scripture since scripture is part of the whole Tradition.

You follow YOUR interpretation of scripture, which is in serious error (based on what you've posted)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
really? How do you come to that conclusion? Look what Christ says after He says he will give Peter the KEYS: . "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
all the apostles got that...matthew 18:18-20

12 keys...….12 popes?
 
Upvote 0

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
show me where Jesus gave all the 12 the keys.
yeah....you're cooked.

you made a point that these keys made peter special because peter got the ability to bind and loose and I showed that the other apostles were also given the authority to bind and loose. so we go back to the original question.

what did peter getting the keys allow him to do that the other apostles of the lamb could not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Woke

Active Member
Supporter
Oct 8, 2019
239
82
71
California
✟38,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All I asked is that people research what KEYS meant in the Davidic Kingdom.
really? How do you come to that conclusion? Look what Christ says after He says he will give Peter the KEYS: . "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." I realize that your position must be "it's a metaphor" or else your position crumbles. However, it is clearly not a metaphor.
in the Davidic Kingdom, did the person who had the keys usurp the King's position? The answer is NO. So why would you insist that Peter would usurp Christ's position?
Looks like you don't know the definition of the word metaphor. If Christ didn't hand Peter a literal key, the kind that actually locks and unlocks a lock on a door or some other object, then the word in the scripture under consideration could only be a metaphor. And if it was a literal key your argument has no merit. The same applies to the the word "rock" as used in the other scripture under consideration. Because if Christ was talking about a literal rock your argument has no merit.

Why do you go back to the metaphorical meaning of the key in David's kingdom? Christ wasn't talking about David's kingdom. He spoke about his church, and the reign it will have over his New World Kingdom-The kingdom of God. That is Christ's kingdom. David was a mere ancestor sitting on a throne that ruled over a land that will be a teeny weeny part of Christ's kingdom.

The fact is you interpret metaphors, which is almost all that you have been doing. But you cannot show from scripture that historically Peter ruled the church in the apostles' day. My post a few posts up, which references biblical history, not biblical metaphors, proves Peter was no Pope, and that if he tried to be a Pope he was apostate-per Christ's words, not mine- because Christ explicitly told him not to do that. And Christ commanded him not to do that without speaking in metaphors. It's not up to interpretation. Following that command is not dependent on understanding it, for everyone understands it. Following it is only dependent on the readers' obedience or disobedience to it.That was something Peter never attempted to do in any scripture we read that covers the time period after Christ died. Yes Peter, John, and James all attempted to attain that position while Christ lived. But while Christ lived he told them he was not granting them any position like that. Not the first position or even the second position. "But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.” (Christ at Mark 10:40) Jesus said it was not his place to assign those places in his church to anyone, and yet you say Christ gave one of those places to Peter. Scriptures say he didn't. There was no Pope in the first century, and Peter was no earthly supreme leader of the church.

I notice in your response to me you not only chose to ignore the historical evidence I brought out in New Testament scripture, you also ignored Christ's direct command I cited, not to call a Christian brother the title Father (Pope), and not to take on that title Father (Pope) for yourself, or even the designation leader, or the designation teacher.

Once the plain evidence of Christ's commands are presented right before your eyes, as I have presented them previously from Matthew 23:8-11, I suggest observing his words. I only comment here as a messenger of Christ. I never go to any Christian social media website to learn anything, only to teach. As Christ's messenger I have to warn as well as encourage people, because that's my assignment. Do what Christ says. All who Christ chooses to serve in his kingdom must do that.

So, again Christ's words are:

"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. “But the greatest among you shall be your servant." Matthew 23:8-11
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Supporter
May 19, 2018
10,943
11,698
Neath
✟1,002,191.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
NOT SO.

Jesus came to save the house of Israel my friend.

Matthew 15:24...……...
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”.

Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries. As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town. Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people.

It was only after He was crucified by those same Jews that God allowed the Gentiles to come into the body of Christ.

Thus we have in Romans 3:29...…….
“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too”.

Jesus was Married????????

Please post that Scripture for all of us.

The point is that Peter WAS MARRIED and the Scriptures say that for a man to be a bishop, HE has to be a married man. That is what the Bible says and it does not matter one bit what the history is from the RCC.

What I said was that there is NO SCRIPTURAL evidence that Peter was baptized. He may have been but Scripture does not say that.

WHY is that important. Because the RCC teaches YOU that salvation is found in the water of baptism which makes water MORE POWERFUL THAT THE BLOOD OF GOD.

Think about that for a moment!

Jesus came to save sinners. Fact!

No, Peter was married. Whats wrong with that? I wasnt on about Jesus. You misread posts all the time! Lol

Have a look at why Bishops and priests were stopped from marrying. Doesnt mean it wont go back to how it used to be buddy.

You continually interpret scripture to suit your own 'individual' 'personal' belief system.

Again, you show how little you actually know about Catholicism by your posts. You really need to study a bit harder my old friend.

Think about that for a minute.

Gid bless you
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
you made a point that these keys made peter special because peter got the ability to bind and loose
correct, the Royal Steward had authority. Jesus said He would give Peter the Keys to His Kingdom and conferred upon Peter the authority that comes with the Keys. This fact blows the metaphor theory out of the water.
I showed that the other apostles were also given the authority to bind and loose. so we go back to the original question
yes, but that doesnt mean all the Apostles were all given Keys:doh: Scripture and Church Tradition clearly shows that Christ conferred upon His Apostles collectively, and Peter individually to authority to bind and loosen. The Church and her Popes have been faithful to that command. Praise Jesus.
yeah....you're cooked.
cooked? I dont even smell any hair being singed yet ^_^
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Looks like you don't know the definition of the word metaphor. If Christ didn't hand Peter a literal key, the kind that actually locks and unlocks a lock on a door or some other object, then the word in the scripture under consideration could only be a metaphor. And if it was a literal key your argument has no merit. The same applies to the the word "rock" as used in the other scripture under consideration. Because if Christ was talking about a literal rock your argument has no merit.

Why do you go back to the metaphorical meaning of the key in David's kingdom? Christ wasn't talking about David's kingdom. He spoke about his church, and the reign it will have over his New World Kingdom-The kingdom of God. That is Christ's kingdom. David was a mere ancestor sitting on a throne that ruled over a land that will be a teeny weeny part of Christ's kingdom.

The fact is you interpret metaphors, which is almost all that you have been doing. But you cannot show from scripture that historically Peter ruled the church in the apostles' day. My post a few posts up, which references biblical history, not biblical metaphors, proves Peter was no Pope, and that if he tried to be a Pope he was apostate-per Christ's words, not mine- because Christ explicitly told him not to do that. And Christ commanded him not to do that without speaking in metaphors. It's not up to interpretation. Following that command is not dependent on understanding it, for everyone understands it. Following it is only dependent on the readers' obedience or disobedience to it.That was something Peter never attempted to do in any scripture we read that covers the time period after Christ died. Yes Peter, John, and James all attempted to attain that position while Christ lived. But while Christ lived he told them he was not granting them any position like that. Not the first position or even the second position. "But I have no right to say who will sit on my right or my left. God has prepared those places for the ones he has chosen.” (Christ at Mark 10:40) Jesus said it was not his place to assign those places in his church to anyone, and yet you say Christ gave one of those places to Peter. Scriptures say he didn't. There was no Pope in the first century, and Peter was no earthly supreme leader of the church.

I notice in your response to me you not only chose to ignore the historical evidence I brought out in New Testament scripture, you also ignored Christ's direct command I cited, not to call a Christian brother the title Father (Pope), and not to take on that title Father (Pope) for yourself, or even the designation leader, or the designation teacher.

Once the plain evidence of Christ's commands are presented right before your eyes, as I have presented them previously from Matthew 23:8-11, I suggest observing his words. I only comment here as a messenger of Christ. I never go to any Christian social media website to learn anything, only to teach. As Christ's messenger I have to warn as well as encourage people, because that's my assignment. Do what Christ says. All who Christ chooses to serve in his kingdom must do that.

So, again Christ's words are:

"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. “But the greatest among you shall be your servant." Matthew 23:8-11
see post above. It was not a metaphor no matter how many time you say it was.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,116
7,243
Dallas
✟873,893.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hebrews 12:2...…….
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

2 Peter 1:20-21........
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Now as a Catholic I know you believe in the TRINITY. God is the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit. THREE PERSONS in one.

So then with that Bible knowledge when you see "Men were moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" means that in fact Jesus was the author of Scriptures.

Amen Jesus worked thru men who were devoted to serving God. It was men whom were moved by the Spirit that agreed on the traditions of the church. That was my point.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
correct, the Royal Steward had authority. Jesus said He would give Peter the Keys to His Kingdom and conferred upon Peter the authority that comes with the Keys.
First, there is no more reason for interpreting it that way than to say that because the Royal Steward and the Apostle both were given something, they were given identical roles to play in God's work.

The Steward was not given keys at all! However, he did have a sash put on him. Not so Peter.

The comparison is "off" in more ways than one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,116
7,243
Dallas
✟873,893.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Trusting men in a current church to pick other men in their church to be elders, does not give any of them authority to be a single leader over the whole Christian congregation, or even their own church group. While the Bible does give elders authority to make decisions it does not give them authority to decide that anything they think is appropriate will be upheld in the church, or make any decision they want about what is not appropriate among the members. Nor does it give them authority to even decide everything Christians must believe to be Christians. Those ideas go against biblical teachings. Your simple statement that they have authority to make decisions doesn't go against scripture. For instance, the Bible does not list marijuana, yet the church can scripturally prohibit members who get intoxicated by it, the same as they can prohibit members who are drunkards-something the Bible does speak about.

As for enforcing beliefs, I'll cite some big ones. Too me I say big only because these are commonly considered deal breakers by most people claiming Christianity. Elders or churches who are claiming all Christian members in their church must interpret the rich man and Lazarus story as either literal, or that they must interpret it as figurative in order to be a Christian member. That idea is not taught in scripture. And I'm speaking of the literal meaning of everlasting torment, or the figurative interpretation of torment meaning everlasting death to those who reject Christ. Christ did not say how one interprets that story determines their salvation.

Here's an even bigger one: While I agree that all the heavenly bound church members of Christ view both the Father and Son as their God, agreeing they both are God over angels and men, and that they are both worshipped, yet scriptures say nothing about worshipping the Holy Spirit, or that a Christian must interpret the Holy spirit as a separate person, and not part of the Son and part of the Father as some scriptures indicate- See Rev 5:6 " Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth."

The problem I see with Christians who make such assertions is that those assertion by them are also claiming Christ judges people on that basis. And I don't think anyone I know would judge a person's life prospect on the basis of interpreting that rich man and Lazarus story figuratively or literally. Or deciding if the Holy Spirit is part of how the Father and Son are as beings as Rev 5:6 suggests, or rather a totally separate entity from the Father and Son. Perhaps God used such language to see how we judge each other based on our different views about such things. Possibly in order to pick who is fit to judge others in their kingdom. To me that's a much more logical reason for those descriptions than believing Christ is deciding the eternal fate of everyone based on interpreting his language there.

It makes sense everyone must accept both Father and Son as God, because as Christ said, "worship your God and serve him only." Therefore, if people do not accept them both as God and worship both then they will not serve both. I believe with some it's just a matter of semantics rather than what they actually don't do. But everyone who lives will eventually acknowledge the Father and Son as their God and worship both, just as scriptures explicitly state about both the Father and Son, but do not explicitly state about the Holy Spirit. Of course if my belief is correct that they are the Holy Spirit, meaning it is a part of each one of them, then yes, Holy Spirit is worshipped too, just not as a separate being.

To my knowledge the church does not teach that interpretation is the basis for salvation but instead the manner in which we walk with Christ.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let's see if the Church Fathers perceived the Keys as a metaphor?

Origen
f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


These are 3rd century writings. I challenge anyone to show me anything from the early Church that shows keys were a metaphor.

Looks like someone else is starting to burn.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.