A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Ethan_Fetch]

I've never liked the Shebna/Eliakim type for Peter for a couple of reasons:

Eliakim is not chosen by the ecclesia or even by Shebna (who, it turns out was a bad fellow), rather, he was chosen directly by God and installed as Shebna's successor. And this is not a normal succession, Shebna is being "thrown down" by God in an extraordinary intervention.

This is clearly and not a blueprint for norming the succession of an office in the people of God.

Furthermore, other passages indicate that this casting down of Shebna did not mean his death since he appears to have survived in a subsidiary office, see 2 Kings 18:18 and Isaiah 36:3.

So, as a type its not very convincing, leaving aside the whole question of whether Jesus and Isaiah are talking about the same key(s).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Key to the House of David and the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are not the same. But they represent the same commission.

The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are Jesus' Keys. They are given to Peter when he is commissioned in the same way the Key to the House of David commissioned the person receiving the Key.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It is that child like faith coming out in me.

Thanks for not taking offense.

Your remark made me think of some scripture... (not that it has anything to do with us right now).

"Corinthians 13:11: When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."

 

[Albion]

You are looking at this from your denominations viewpoint and teaching. Your teaching tries to conform evertything in the bible to it's own teaching.

A familiar escape, I suppose, but scripture and history cannot be avoided that easily. If you have a reply to what I've presented to you, of course I'm interested in that.

I am saying that Matthew was written to the Jews in the first century that were being converted to Christianity. That the Gospel of Matthew will concentrate on Jewish teachings because it is showing that Jesus has fulfilled prophecies. Because there is emphasis on Jesus fulfilling prophecies in regards to the Old Testatment, the OT will be the backdrop to much that is written.

That's true as far as it goes, but there IS NOTHING IN MATTHEW that ties the verse to the OT prophesy except the word keys which as we know can be used variously. HERE IS THE TEST: IF YOUR THEORY WERE CORRECT, THERE WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST CENTURY JEWS INTERPRETING IT AS YOU THEORIZE. You have nothing like that to offer, although I've put it to you before.

For the Jews in the first century this chapter and verse of Matthew would not go without recognition of Isaias 22:22 to any learned Jew.

So far, we have only you saying that--and your denomination, of course.


What would be needed for any credibility to that theory is the first century Jews saying and understanding it that way. Bur of course you know that already.

I cannot think of a better way to explain this right now...

Use the way mentioned several times above.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaias 22:22 is not only the mentioning of Key(s) but what they grant as well, Binding and loosing (opening and closing).

We must also consider that the Jews at the time o Jesus had Tradtions that went with their scriptural stories and teachings that were not always 'spelled out' in the scriptures.

 

[Albion]

The connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaias 22:22 is not only the mentioning of Key(s) but what they grant as well, Binding and loosing (opening and closing).

Any reference to a key is an allusion to what keys are used for (opening things kept hidden). In Peter's case, the usual understanding is that he was chosen by Christ to open the world to the Gospel. Remember that this was not the case before Pentecost. There is no necessary connection between the keys and the power to bind and loose, but IF THERE WERE, it would apply to Peter, not to Popes.

The main issue with the Papacy is the claim of men who were NOT the recipients of any promises to have appropriated them for themselves merely by being the bishops of Rome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Any reference to a key is an allusion to what keys are used for (opening things kept hidden). In Peter's case, the usual understanding is that he was chosen by Christ to open the world to the Gospel. Remember that this was not the case before Pentecost. There is no necessary connection between the keys and the power to bind and loose, but IF THERE WERE, it would apply to Peter, not to Popes.

The main issue with the Papacy is the claim of men who were NOT the recipients of any promises to have appropriated them for themselves merely by being the bishops of Rome.

In your effort to refute the Papacy you are ignoring the connection to Isaias 22.

You are saying that the keys are an allusion to opening and closing and you are correct butnot in the way you see it.


Consider what Isaias 22:22 is saying.

Isaias 22:22. 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.

As you said the Key opens and closes. But it is not things kept hidden. Jesus gave the world Truth and Grace and he was not hiding it.

The Key(s) has a very real meaning and one that commissions someone to an office.

As in Isaias 22:22 above we see that the Key of the House of David gave him the power to open and close and no one could change it. This is not speaking of the doors in the house but of laws and decisions.

In Matthew 16:19 the same things is said almost word for word when Peter (alone) receives the Keys.

Matthew 16:19. 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 on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


Here Jesus gave Peter the Keys and says whatever he binds or looses that no man can change. But what is different in Matthew compared to Isaias is that we have heaven and earth and not just the House of David.

Binding and Loosing are the same as opening and closing from Isaias 22:22.

To open is to loose and to close is to bind.

But consider too Matthew 16:18 because Matthew 16:19 are speaking of the Church. So we can see that Jesus' Church will be in heaven and on the Earth and these Keys give Peter the power to bind and loose for the Church. And it must be this Church that Jesus speaks of.

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.

Matthew 16:19 is a continuation of Matthew 16:18 because it starts with AND.

So the Keys are cannot be an allusion to anything but Jesus' Church and Peter having a very specific power to bind and loose. This power is the same as in Isaias since that is what the Key represents.

When you come to the realization that Matthew 16:19 is a direct relation to Isaias 22:22 then you will know it is an office that is filled by another when one leaves his office.

Isaias 22:19. And I will drive thee out from thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry.


"depose thee" from his station... obviously it is a station (or office) that once vacant is filled again.

Isaias 22:20. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias

Eliacim is filling a now empty office. It is this way with the Pope as well. That is why that has been a well maintained history of the seat of Peter since Peter.

Keep in mind that this office of Peter also bears a direct connection to the power of the Seat of Moses. And what is the Seat of Moses? Scripture mentions it but once when Jesus says to do as the Pharisees teach but not as they do for they sit in the seat of Moses.

Matthew 23:1. Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 23:2. Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.23:3. 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.23:4. For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men's shoulders



Notice too the use of the word "bind" as mentioned here.


The understanding of the KEYS has to be in accord with all scripture and the Catholic teaching of this is in accord with all scripture with it's Traditions both of the Old and the New Testaments.

 

[Rick Otto]

is belief.

Our belief is God's work.

Grace, not merit by co-operation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The devil has belief and it has not helped one iota in his salvation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Just like our worship of Mary is not the same as our worship of God. (latria vs dulia)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Not only does his belief not help him one iota, it has condemned him completely.
His belief is "intellectual assent" or "credence" vs "faith"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Links are to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Just like our worship of Mary is not the same as our worship of God. (latria vs dulia)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Not only does his belief not help him one iota, it has condemned him completely.
His belief is "intellectual assent" or "credence" vs "faith"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Links are to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

This is getting off topic...

First, Catholics only worship God.

Second, belief has nothing to do with the mention of Keys in Matthew 16:19.

So, let us get back on topic.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'd hate to make to make a point.

 

[Albion]

In your effort to refute the Papacy you are ignoring the connection to Isaias 22.

You are saying that the keys are an allusion to opening and closing and you are correct butnot in the way you see it.

You have it wrong. I alone between us know or recognize that "keys" appear as an allusion in a number of places in scripture. You are insistent upon the idea that one reference must have the same meaning as another separated by many centuries and other factors. Yes, Isaias is there and has a meaning; that in no way indicates that when Jesus says what he does to Peter that this connects to an earlier use of the keys imagery.

Consider what Isaias 22:22 is saying.

Isaias 22:22. 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.

It is quite obvious that this deals with something substantially different from what Jesus was doing with Peter.

As you said the Key opens and closes. But it is not things kept hidden. Jesus gave the world Truth and Grace and he was not hiding it.

All you are doing there is saying that the key reference must deal with one certain and very specific kind of use of a key. That doesn't make sense. One could refer to a key as opening something...or as guarding something. Keys have a use that lemons or water fountains do not, but it is not appropriate to say that when Jesus made mention of keys that he HAD to be referring to the same idea as keys were used to convey in the OT.

The Key(s) has a very real meaning and one that commissions someone to an office.

That's one and one only use of a key--and reason for employing the imagery of a key. You have already admitted that it can also open something, but now you want us to believe that if "key" appears, the only possible meaning has to do with an office. That is a non-sequitur and not credible.

It (an office held) also is one of the rarer uses of a key to signify anything. We normally associate them with doors or locks.

As in Isaias 22:22 above we see that the Key of the House of David gave him the power to open and close and no one could change it. This is not speaking of the doors in the house but of laws and decisions.

In Matthew 16:19 the same things is said almost word for word when Peter (alone) receives the Keys.

Well, actually it is not. That's part of my point. But even if it were almost identical, hypothetically speaking, it STILL would not mean any fanciful establishement of a line of religious rulers. The comparison, if there were one, could still be an allusion itself. For example, IF Jesus were thinking specifically of the House of David, his commission to Peter would make every bit as much sense as saying "David was given a power symbolized by a key; I'm now giving you another very important one that I will also use a key to represent." There is absolutely nothing that makes the one a CONTINUATION or RESUMPTION of the former.

But IF it were somehow so, despite that...

We would see the actual resumption of such a line. We do not. We would have the first Christians recognizing such. They didn't. Rome as the center of the faith would surely have come into Jesus' words SOMEWHERE, SOME TIME. It doesn't. That and the simple facts of history show that this theory is just a theory, and one concocted much later by the bishops of Rome themselves for obvious reasons.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You have it wrong...

What does it mean to "Bind" and "Loose"?

 

[Albion]

Having gone back and forth several times with basically the same information, I strongly feel that at this point you really need to address one overriding question. Leaving aside all the many possible ways that we can read this or that verse, and setting aside for the moment all the theory...

...address the question of "what happened?"

If there were a recognized Pope, as we know the office, that the first century churches accepted, that would lend enormous credence to your interpretation of the keys, etc.

But if there were no Popes with recognized universal jurisdiction and seen by the Christians of that time to be exercising a special power given to Peter by Jesus and intended to be passed on to one successor after another, then clearly the theory is invalid.

This, I should not have to empathize, is not a debating technique or something like the famous scientific method by which we were taught how to order our thinking so to come up with a sensible answer about whatever it may be. The Roman Catholic Church rests upon continuity, called Tradition, upon the idea of the faith being always the same, of there being a consensus, etc. You know all about that, I'm sure.

So, if it is there, the theory is not quite irresistable; but if it is not so, if there is no continuity, if it didn't exist in the beginning but only arose later, then by your own system of theology, you are dealing with an interpretation arrived at long after the fact, i.e. a theory that supports the Papacy only after it became necessary to explain how the Papacy had arisen long after Peter.

So far, you have not wanted to look at these factors--what the early Church believed about Rome, what Apostolic Succession meant and when it became an idea, what any of the bishops of Rome after Peter thought about themselves or whether they behaved as if they held the idea that you are promoting. But I don't think you can be fair with the subject if you decline to do that. You, in fact, owe it to yourself.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Tradition of the Church does contain the understanding of a single seat above all others in the priesthood and it starts with Moses. The scripture cannot be fully understood without this fact.

But we can see through all the Scripture and Tradition before and after Jesus' sacrifice that this existed.

We can see New Testament Scripture that shows not only ordination but a holding of authority in Peter. Sure there have been those that try desperately to refute it but it exists in the New Testament. Peter was the one who deiced and ended debates.

But we also see it in many writings from 80 AD to 750 AD with the Early Church Fathers.

That is not to say that all Bishops were fully knowledgable. We know that the Church has had Bishops that were ignorant and simply 'wrong'. But the Truth is still there that there is a special commission granted to Peter from Jesus and that this commission is to be handed on until the end of time. We see this not only with the Keys but with reference to Moses Chair. We see it also when Jesus set Peter to shephard his flock. We also see it when Peter is to be the Rock. There are too many references to this.

 

[Albion]

The Tradition of the Church does contain the understanding of a single seat above all others in the priesthood and it starts with Moses. The scripture cannot be fully understood without this fact.

While there is much precedent in the OT for the NT, we absolutely cannot contend that Jesus merely continued the Jewish religion as it was before and did nothing new. This argument about "starts with Moses" cannot fly as an answer to everything.

We can see New Testament Scripture that shows not only ordination but a holding of authority in Peter. Sure there have been those that try desperately to refute it but it exists in the New Testament. Peter was the one who deiced and ended debates.

and we see that he was not the chairman, just the most persuasive speaker. To be Pope would be to reverse that.

But we also see it in many writings from 80 AD to 750 AD with the Early Church Fathers.

Where we find as much against the claims of the Papacy grounded in Peter as we find affirmations of that idea. But almost all of it is not from the first century church, either way.

I do hope you will address the history of the matter, for in that you have the evidence of whether the theory is sound or not.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

While there is much precedent in the OT for the NT, we absolutely cannot contend that Jesus merely continued the Jewish religion as it was before and did nothing new. This argument about "starts with Moses" cannot fly as an answer to everything.

I do not see it as an answer to everything. I recognize it's importance in the structure of the church though.

In Matthew 23 we read that even though the Jews were living differently thenm the Law of Moses, Jesus still commanded to do as they say. This is becasue Jesus did not do away with the old Law but instead brought Grace and Truth to it. We can also see this with Popes.

23:1. Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 23:2. Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 23:3. 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.

and we see that he was not the chairman, just the most persuasive speaker. To be Pope would be to reverse that.

That is Your argument. But you still recognize Peter as being The deciding factor even if You believe it is based on his persuasiveness.

Where we find as much against the claims of the Papacy grounded in Peter as we find affirmations of that idea. But almost all of it is not from the first century church, either way.

I do hope you will address the history of the matter, for in that you have the evidence of whether the theory is sound or not.

It is a 'theory' to you and others but to a Catholic it is Truth and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus God's Will.

But this thread has MANY references to early church writings and scripture understanding that explains the Popes Primacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I do hope you will address the history of the matter, for in that you have the evidence of whether the theory is sound or not.

You do realize that up until King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and could not get it from Rome that it was accepted that the Pope was the Authority?

Even the Queen afterwards saw this.

I wonder how Anglicanism understands this change for the King having that 'Authority'?

 

[Albion]

That is Your argument. But you still recognize Peter as being The deciding factor even if You believe it is based on his persuasiveness

It's not 'my argument,' Jack. If you read the verses, there is no other way to understand it. James was the leader, Peter persuaded the gathering to see things as he explained them. But the Papacy is leadership, comparable to James in this case.

It is a 'theory' to you and others but to a Catholic it is Truth and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus God's Will.

All you are saying there is that this is the particular theory that Catholics accept and believe to be the right one. There are other theories and people who believe them to be the correct interpretation instead. If you want to prove your theory correct, you have to do more than say that "we believe it." That's why I suggested you see if the Church believed it also. Of course, it did not.

But this thread has MANY references to early church writings and scripture understanding that explains the Popes Primacy.

There are none from the early church except Clement's letter that is inconclusive. When we look at the writings of the fathers from later times, some support the Peter theory, many absolutely denounce it. Those are the ones you never refer to.