For Catholics to consider

[Montalban]

It appears that binding and loosing are indeed powers of the keys, but I do not see where the keys themselves were given to anyone but Peter. So while James and John (the only two individuals other than Peter that appear, by context of the passage, to be present when Jesus spoke the words in Matthew 18) may have been authorized to share in the binding and loosing power, I see no reason to believe that they were given the keys to hold.

This is a remarkable Catholic argument. It rests on a strictly literalist interpretation of Matthew's Gospel, it is thus 'sola scriptura'.

If we apply this Protestant view to the text we can say the keys are only explicitly noted as being with Peter, and only implied as being given to the others. Fortunately we have 'tradition' and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

One, John Chrysostom says that the keys are held by the Apostle John...
"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now" Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1
(emphasis added)
Augustine concurs that the whole church has the keys
"...the keys that were given to the Church..." A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists. Chapter 10.45

Now, some prophetic Scripture for meditation:


Isaiah 22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

There's great irony in Catholics now using this passage. It constitutes another remarkable Catholic following of Protestant teaching. The passage refers to a single key, not keys. It's regular use as pertaining to the 'keys' (plural) was done early last century by Protestants.

 

[Montalban]

Catholics must abandon the Church Fathers to seek a totally literal reading of Matthew in order to see that Peter 'alone' gets the keys.

I touched upon the strange use of evidence in my article (see OP)

One is where Catholic apologists cite the following sentences

"An edict of Theodosius III and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Bishop of Rome “Rector of the whole church.” Justinian published a similar decree."
Used on such sites as
http://catholicpedia.net/index.php?title=Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff

Overview History Papacy

The Perilous Fondness for the Pa

NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Primacy of the roman pontiff

However if one reads the whole text of the book they cite...
"An edict of Theodosius III and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Bishop of Rome “Rector of the whole church.” Justinian published a similar decree. These edicts did not contain all that the popes pretended to see in them; but in those times of ignorance it was easy for them to secure that interpretation which was most favourable to themselves.
d 'Aubigné, J. H. M, (1857) History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Book 1, (Robert Carter & Brothers; NY), pp41-42.

The selective use of texts is just repeated over and over again by Catholic apologist sites

 

[Montalban]

Double post

 

[Fotina]

It appears that binding and loosing are indeed powers of the keys, but I do not see where the keys themselves were given to anyone but Peter. So while James and John (the only two individuals other than Peter that appear, by context of the passage, to be present when Jesus spoke the words in Matthew 18) may have been authorized to share in the binding and loosing power, I see no reason to believe that they were given the keys to hold. Now, some prophetic Scripture for meditation:

Isaiah 22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

This is a remarkable Catholic argument. It rests on a strictly literalist interpretation of Matthew's Gospel, it is thus 'sola scriptura'.

If we apply this Protestant view to the text we can say the keys are only explicitly noted as being with Peter, and only implied as being given to the others. Fortunately we have 'tradition' and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.

One, John Chrysostom says that the keys are held by the Apostle John...
"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now" Homilies on the Gospel of John. Preface to Homily 1.1
(emphasis added)
Augustine concurs that the whole church has the keys
"...the keys that were given to the Church..." A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists. Chapter 10.45



There's great irony in Catholics now using this passage. It constitutes another remarkable Catholic following of Protestant teaching. The passage refers to a single key, not keys. It's regular use as pertaining to the 'keys' (plural) was done early last century by Protestants.

Most telling is the tradition and history that shows the entire Church of the first millennium never acknowledged Rome as having supremacy despite its ambitious tendencies. Only primacy was acknowledged and due honor as the first among equals. Rome fashioned its own supremacy among its adherents after it left the Church.

 

[Rick Otto]

It rests on a strictly literalist interpretation of Matthew's Gospel, it is thus 'sola scriptura'.

LOL. That's got to be "a remarkable argument". Suggesting sola scriptura means 'literal only".

 

[Rick Otto]

The passage refers to a single key, not keys.

Meaning the Isaih passage, not the Matt 16 passage.
Good point if it can be considered apart from your anti-Protestant untruths.

 

[Rick Otto]

It appears that binding and loosing are indeed powers of the keys

I would be interested in how you came to that conclusion since on another thread you said that the clause about the powers following the clause about the keys being in the same sentence didn't necessarily mean the powers were those of the keys.

 

[Montalban]

Most telling is the tradition and history that shows the entire Church of the first millennium never acknowledged Rome as having supremacy despite its ambitious tendencies. Only primacy was acknowledged and due honor as the first among equals. Rome fashioned its own supremacy among its adherents after it left the Church.

As my article starts...

Catholic Cardinal and theologian Yves Congar stated

"The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century."
Congar. Y., (1982) Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty–Third), pp. 26–27

 

[Montalban]

Just to add detail because it's clear some do not see the meaning...

There's great irony in Catholics now using this passage. It constitutes another remarkable Catholic following of Protestant teaching. The passage refers to a single key, not keys. It's regular use as pertaining to the 'keys' (plural) was done early last century by Protestants.

The passage that was quoted was from the OT and pertains to a single key. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the keys (plural) in Matthew and therefore has no bearing on the argument that Catholics make that Jesus handed Peter the keys.

By and large it is Protestants who have only recently made the connection between the single key passage in the OT and the many keys passage in the NT.

For the life of the church - 2,000 + years, the Church Fathers are silent on this (I believe on writer made one refernce, only). However some Protestants decided to start making that connection that was not made before and now Catholics, following Protestant interpretation make the connection also.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's pretty easy to see what happens in the absence of a visible Church.

Are you referring to the explosive growth of the Church in China?

 

[Montalban]

Hopefully this thread will stay on course - it's not about visible -v- invisible churches.

It is, I hope, an excuse for Catholics to criticise my article, that they might not otherwise be able to do

So far the critique rests on a quote mine not actually taking into account the article, and to cite two Protestant approaches to texts.

 

[Standing Up]

The commentary as well as Irenaeus may also help your case.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,3313
3313 The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome. that is, the faithful everywhere, 416 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, ... Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


But so far, the silence of RC is too bad, given their necessity for establishment of points on the subject.

 

[Standing Up]

Did you ever answer from where Victor even got the idea he had the power to excommunicate 1/2 of the Church at the time?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I already dealt with many of the quotes in the article. Flinging a quote-mine at me is not a discussion

It is in fact because the Catholic church miss-uses these Church Fathers I was drawn to write the article.

Take for instance John Chrysostom. He spent the majority of his life out of communion with the Church of Rome.

Whilst he praises Peter, he uses the exact same terms to praise others as well.

One of the things that drew me away from the Catholic Church in the first place was when I thought about this use of evidence. I thought that if a church's claims are based on such deceit* then they don't really have much basis for their claims."

Pot?
Yes kettle?
You're black.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Most telling is the tradition and history that shows the entire Church of the first millennium never acknowledged Rome as having supremacy despite its ambitious tendencies. Only primacy was acknowledged and due honor as the first among equals. Rome fashioned its own supremacy among its adherents after it left the Church.

Tradition and history show the exact opposite, as a matter of fact.

It was the east that downplayed the importance of being in communion with the Apostolic See after they established their own Church.

 

[Montalban]

I have also invited on Catholic editor from Wiki to this forum to participate.

I hope that Catholics might be able to find what they perceive to be holes in the article. It will help me in the development of the article.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

For Orthodox the church doesn't have to have a centre, anymore than the Trinity has to be located in a particular spot.

Which is why they have numerous problems in division and having a voice on any issue.

They world will always need an apostles to speak plainly and with authority on issues of faith.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I don't want to see this as an argument against 'visible' or 'invisible' churches - but the Orthodox is a visible church too, and yet from your church spawned all the Protestant groups,and according to your church, my church as well!

What do you think of the article (referred to in OP)??

The Catholic Church didn't 'spawn' anything opposed to it. That would be like lies coming from the truth or evil coming from God.

Evil was created by breaking from God. Schismatic groups and heretics create themselves by breaking from the truth.

 

[Montalban]

For those willing to read the article I have pushed a great many of the quotes into the notes to help (I hope) with the flow of the article

 

[Rick Otto]

Thank God I am not "the world' and the apostles have finished speaking.