Pope may be the successor of Peter After all

[hedrick]

If people want to use OT passages typologically, they’re free to do that. But if someone is claiming that it’s what Jesus (or the author, if the passage doesn’t go back to Jesus — a more probable view) had in mind, I’m not convinced. The metaphorical use of keys is fairly common in the NT. It’s not like Is 22:22 is some special use that anyone using the word would think of. The Word commentary notes the following uses: Luk 11:52, Mat 23:13, Rev 1:18. Hermeneia comments that based on Is 22:22 you’d expect opening and closing rather than loosing and binding.

Is 22:22 would be a particularly inauspicious basis for Catholic claims to authority, since the person to whom the keys were given was expected to fail (22:25).

However it certainly indicates authoritative leadership. Attempts in some posts to avoid that are unconvincing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The later conferring of the power to bind and unbind on the rest of the apostles does not change what is said to St. Peter but expands on it.

No, Matthew 18:18 does not expand on Matthew 16:18-19. The two passages are quite distinct and no keys are mentioned in Matthew 18:18. Since it is the power of the keys that you've attempted to say all of the apostles exercised you have yet to make a case for that proposition because Matthew 18:18 does not help your claim. Matthew 16:18-19 confers the keys on saint Peter and no one else.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In the first place, the key of David in Isa 22:22 is still held by Christ per Rev. 3:7.

Who denies this? Even if Peter is the Vicar, Christ is the King. [/quote]Peter never had it. So what did Christ give Peter? The keys of the kingdom of heaven. [/quote] Right.

What did Peter do with them? He used them; he opened the door when he preached to Jews at the first Pentecost in the New and to Gentiles at Cornelius' when the Spirit also fell.

He also passed them on to those after his martyrdom to do the same thing. Lead the Church.

The keys were given to Peter, he exercised them. Who will shut the door to the kingdom?

That's just not all the keys are...

Tertullian asked, who are you Psychic to usurp what was given to Peter alone, as post #30 shows nicely.

 

[ICXC NIKA]

But they are NOT the same as given in the OT, although the church often says that they are. And they do not necessarily signify authority.


There's no comparison to Peter's keys there. It was "key" not "keys" in the OT and, as you said, the position was one of political leadership.


No it is not. As a matter of the historical record, Linus was not given anything by Peter. He wasn't in Rome at the time of Peter's death and hadn't been designated as his successor by Peter. The townsmen of Rome chose him and sent for him--which is the process that continued on in the choosing of a new bishop for Rome for another thousand years.

For a thousand years the "townsmen of Rome chose the bishops of Rome" ?
What does the key or keys given to Peter signify in your opinion?

 

[Albion]

For a thousand years the "townsmen of Rome chose the bishops of Rome" ?
What does the key or keys given to Peter signify in your opinion?

What's the connection between those two sentences?

 

[Standing Up]

Who denies this? Even if Peter is the Vicar, Christ is the King.

People were making a false association between the keys of the kingdom given to Peter and the key of David retained by Christ.

 

[Albion]

What does the history of the townsmen of Rome choosing the bishop of Rome have to do with it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

People were making a false association between the keys of the kingdom given to Peter and the key of David retained by Christ.

Really? I didn't see that at all.

 

[Open Heart]

In Matt 16 Christ said to Peter "get thee behind me SATAN" -- was Christ giving the keys to what he calls 'satan'?? (using the method you point out in the post).

In 2 Cor 3 'NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay --other than has been laid -- Jesus Christ".
1Cor 10:4 - "They all drank from the same ROCK (PETRA) and that ROCK was Christ" -- not Peter.

Peter "fears men from James" in Phil 2 -- and distances himself from Gentiles to please James and the men from James -- James also renders his own "decision" in Acts 15 -- deciding "for the church council" the debate of Acts 15.

I have no doubt that Peter was a great Apostle to the day he died.

But there is in fact only ONE example of "Apostolic succession" in the NT and that is in Acts 1 - Judas' successor.

But when Apostle James is killed Acts 12:2 -- and no "Apostolic succession" follows.

Your misunderstanding is that you think that only another apostle is a successor to an apostle, when in fact the bishops were their successors. They ordained those whom they trusted to reliably teach the gospel in their absence, that would includee after their deaths.

 

[Open Heart]

2. What do Catholics make of this in light of the Failuers and Flaws of the Church.

As a Catholic, I am of course horrified by some of the things that Christians have done in the name of Christ. But the Church is a hospital for sinners. And somehow the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church despite the fact that it is made up of fallible men. Somehow, someway, despite all its flaws and failures, God in his grace sees the Church as his perfect bride.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 16 Christ said to Peter "get thee behind me SATAN" -- was Christ giving the keys to what he calls 'satan'?? (using the method you point out in the post).

In 2 Cor 3 'NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay --other than has been laid -- Jesus Christ".
1Cor 10:4 - "They all drank from the same ROCK (PETRA) and that ROCK was Christ" -- not Peter.

Peter "fears men from James" in Phil 2 -- and distances himself from Gentiles to please James and the men from James -- James also renders his own "decision" in Acts 15 -- deciding "for the church council" the debate of Acts 15.

I have no doubt that Peter was a great Apostle to the day he died.

But there is in fact only ONE example of "Apostolic succession" in the NT and that is in Acts 1 - Judas' successor.

But when Apostle James is killed Acts 12:2 -- and no "Apostolic succession" follows.

Your misunderstanding is that you think that only another apostle is a successor to an apostle, when in fact the bishops were their successors. They ordained those whom they trusted to reliably teach the gospel in their absence, that would includee after their deaths.

In Acts 1 - someone who is not an Apostle is selected to succeed Judas. Apostolic succession.

In Acts 12 - no one - of any rank is said to in any way "succeed" James.

 

[Albion]

In Acts 1 - someone who is not an Apostle is selected to succeed Judas. Apostolic succession.

Yes.

In Acts 12 - no one - of any rank is said to in any way "succeed" James.

So?

 

[Mediaeval]

No, Matthew 18:18 does not expand on Matthew 16:18-19. The two passages are quite distinct and no keys are mentioned in Matthew 18:18. Since it is the power of the keys that you've attempted to say all of the apostles exercised you have yet to make a case for that proposition because Matthew 18:18 does not help your claim. Matthew 16:18-19 confers the keys on saint Peter and no one else.

Saint Augustine calls the keys, “the keys of binding and loosing.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.v.iv.vi.i.html?highlight=keys#highlight
If, then, Matt. 16 connects the keys with the power to bind and loose, why should it be necessary to repeat the word “keys” in Matt. 18 when the same power, already connected to the keys, is in view?

Again, Saint Augustine connected the keys of Matt. 16 to the power of binding and loosing also mentioned in Matt. 18 when he wrote that our Lord “has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.xviii.html?highlight=keys#highlight

Saint Jerome wrote, "But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike."
Against Jovinianus,1 (A.D. 393), in NPNF2,VI:366 (acknowledgement to RC apologist Dave Armstrong for this quote)

The early, sainted pope again: “This power of the keys is translated to all Apostles and bishops.” Leo I (d. 461), quoted in Harold Browne’s An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, 1854, pp. 809,810)

Anselm wrote, “It is to be noted that this power was not given to Peter only, but as Peter answered one for all, so in Peter he gave this power to all.”
https://archive.org/stream/a547284200beveuoft#page/n603/mode/2up

The Lateran Council of 1215, considered an ecumenical council by the RCC, states that Jesus Christ Himself gave “the keys of the Church,” not to Peter alone, but “to the Apostles and their successors.” http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

The famous doctor of the church, Thomas Aquinas, posed the question, “Whether the key is the power of binding and loosing, etc.?” In this section Aquinas responded to the specific objection, “It would seem that the key is not the power of binding and loosing.” Aquinas reasoned, however, that “the same power whereby a priest…can loose and bind” [Matt. 16 & 18] is “the power of the keys.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5017.htm

Again, Aquinas answered the question, “Whether the priest can bind through the power of the keys?” Aquinas then affirmed that “the operation of the priest in using the keys, is conformed to God's operation.” Aquinas went on to say that the priest uses the keys in absolving, binding, and loosing. Thus Aquinas also connected the keys promised to Peter with binding and loosing (Matt. 16 & 18). http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q18_A3.html?highlight=keys#highlight

Aquinas also addressed the question, “Whether priests alone have the keys?” as though the fact that priests also have the keys was a settled belief, not a matter of dispute as in this thread. Aquinas quoted Saint Ambrose: “Ambrose says (De Poenit. i): ‘This right,’ viz. of binding and loosing, ‘is granted to priests alone.’” Aquinas added, “By receiving the power of the keys, a man is set up between the people and God. But this belongs to the priest alone.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q19_A3.html

The RC Council of Trent decreed that “in accordance with the power of the keys, [priests] may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins,” thus connecting the keys promised to Peter individually with the power bestowed on all the Apostles to forgive or retain sins (John 20). http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch14.htm

The traditional, catholic, patristic, and mediaeval view was thus articulated by Theophylact: “For though it be said to Peter only, ‘I will give to thee,’ yet the same power was given to all the apostles, when he said, ‘Whose soever sins ye remit shall be remitted’” Theophylact on Matt. 16, quoted in Ecclesia Anglicana, Ecclesia Catholica: or, The Doctrine of the Church of England… by William Beveridge pp. 585-586) https://archive.org/stream/a547284200beveuoft#page/n601/mode/2up

 

[MoreCoffee]

Saint Augustine calls the keys, “the keys of binding and loosing.” ...

You are consistently failing to distinguish between the power and the keys. One could make a case for saying that the power that the key holder has is to bind & unbind and one can say that all of the apostles of Christ were given the power to bind & unbind but one cannot categorically identify the keys with binding and unbinding. Matthew 16:17-19 offers the possibility saint Peter received the keys and the power to bind & unbind at the same time but there really isn't a clear case for equating the keys (of the kingdom of heaven) with the power to bind & unbind. Keys have more in common with opening and shutting and if there is a link between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 it is more likely to be by way of opening & shutting the door(s) into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
(Matthew 16:17-19 NJB)

The Lord GOD of hosts says this: Go and find that steward, Shebna, the master of the palace: 'What do you own here, who gave you the right for you to hew yourself a tomb here?' He is hewing himself a tomb, is digging a resting-place for himself in the rock. But the LORD will throw you away, strong as you are, will grasp you in his grip, will screw you up into a ball, a ball thrown into a vast space. There you will die, with your splendid chariots, disgrace to your master's palace! I shall hound you from your office, I shall snatch you from your post and, when that day comes, I shall summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I shall dress him in your tunic, I shall put your sash round his waist, I shall invest him with your authority; and he will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. I shall place the key of David's palace on his shoulder; when he opens, no one will close, when he closes, no one will open. I shall drive him like a nail into a firm place; and he will become a throne of glory for his family.
(Isaiah 22:15-23 NJB)
​

 

[Mediaeval]

You are consistently failing to distinguish between the power and the keys. One could make a case for saying that the power that the key holder has is to bind & unbind and one can say that all of the apostles of Christ were given the power to bind & unbind but one cannot categorically identify the keys with binding and unbinding. Matthew 16:17-19 offers the possibility saint Peter received the keys and the power to bind & unbind at the same time but there really isn't a clear case for equating the keys (of the kingdom of heaven) with the power to bind & unbind. Keys have more in common with opening and shutting and if there is a link between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 it is more likely to be by way of opening & shutting the door(s) into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'
(Matthew 16:17-19 NJB)

The Lord GOD of hosts says this: Go and find that steward, Shebna, the master of the palace: 'What do you own here, who gave you the right for you to hew yourself a tomb here?' He is hewing himself a tomb, is digging a resting-place for himself in the rock. But the LORD will throw you away, strong as you are, will grasp you in his grip, will screw you up into a ball, a ball thrown into a vast space. There you will die, with your splendid chariots, disgrace to your master's palace! I shall hound you from your office, I shall snatch you from your post and, when that day comes, I shall summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I shall dress him in your tunic, I shall put your sash round his waist, I shall invest him with your authority; and he will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. I shall place the key of David's palace on his shoulder; when he opens, no one will close, when he closes, no one will open. I shall drive him like a nail into a firm place; and he will become a throne of glory for his family.
(Isaiah 22:15-23 NJB)
​

The keys may be distinguished from the power, as a metaphor may be distinguished from that which it represents, but the two cannot be separated. Aquinas equates the keys with their power. What else could they be equated to? “Now the door of the kingdom is closed to us through sin….Wherefore the power of removing this obstacle is called a key…This power is called metaphorically the Church's key.” Aquinas, Summa Theol. Q. 17, Art. 1 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5017.htm
If I failed to make a necessary distinction, what of the sainted pope, church fathers, “the greatest of human teachers (Catholic Encyclopedia)” Thomas Aquinas, and the allegedly infallible church councils quoted earlier? As a Roman Catholic, you are "bound" to accept those conciliar decrees as true.

In the verses you cited, consider how the keys are explained. In Isaiah 22, after the key is mentioned, a phrase follows explaining the key’s power: “When he opens, no one will close, when he closes, no one will open.” In Matthew 16, after the keys are mentioned, a similar phrase follows, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Is it not a natural reading of the text, especially when compared with Isaiah 22, to understand this phrase also as explaining the keys’ power? In Matthew 18:17 we see that it is the power of binding and loosing behind the church's authority to shut out a stubborn offender. What is that but the power of opening and shutting? Interestingly, in Revelation 9:1,2 and in Revelation 20:1,2 there is an angel with a key who both “opens” and “binds.”

 

[MoreCoffee]

The keys may be distinguished from the power, as a metaphor may be distinguished from that which it represents, but the two cannot be separated.

You have not made the case for identifying the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the power to bind & unbind. It seems that your post proceeds on the assumption that such a link is true but you have not made a credible case for that link yet. Matthew 16:17-19 does not equate the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the power to bind & unbind nor does it relate the keys to that power by way of metaphor implying that the keys are a metaphor for the power to bind & unbind. I await your arguments substantiating the link you have thus far assumed to be true but not shown to be true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Aquinas equates the keys with their power. What else could they be equated to?

Perhaps the keys of the kingdom of heaven have their own meaning and significance quite apart from the words "bind and loose". There is nothing in the Matthew 16:17-19 to force a reader into equating the two.

 

[MoreCoffee]

“Now the door of the kingdom is closed to us through sin….Wherefore the power of removing this obstacle is called a key…This power is called metaphorically the Church's key.” Aquinas, Summa Theol. Q. 17, Art. 1 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5017.htm

Saint Thomas Aquinas isn't equating the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind & unbind in the quote you've posted.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If I failed to make a necessary distinction, what of the sainted pope, church fathers, “the greatest of human teachers (Catholic Encyclopedia)” Thomas Aquinas, and the allegedly infallible church councils quoted earlier? As a Roman Catholic, you are "bound" to accept those conciliar decrees as true.

Why do you make this argument when you know it is not the truth? Councils and popes, saints and the sainted doctor do not speak infallibly with every word that they utter just as every word written by the apostles is not necessarily inspired. Inspiration is restricted to the holy scriptures and similarly infallible truth is restricted to the those decrees of councils that are endorsed by the pope and are also presented as infallible truth from God. Many things written in the deliberations and interpretations (of holy scripture) of councils are only a part of the reasoning of the council fathers and not a part of any decree or canon much less are they automatically received as infallible truth binding the consciences of the faithful. This being so I think you would do better to make your case as good and persuading as you are able rather than relying on the alleged authority of councils and popes in the hope that they will make the case for you. Do you yourself accept the decrees of the councils and the views of the popes as infallible truth that settles the argument? If not is it not disingenuous to appeal to them in our discussion?

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the verses you cited, consider how the keys are explained. In Isaiah 22, after the key is mentioned, a phrase follows explaining the key’s power: “When he opens, no one will close, when he closes, no one will open.” In Matthew 16, after the keys are mentioned, a similar phrase follows, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Is it not a natural reading of the text, especially when compared with Isaiah 22, to understand this phrase also as explaining the keys’ power?

Matthew 16:17-19 does in fact contain the phrase "bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" but that does not seem to be a parallel to "when he opens and no one will shut and when he closes no one will open". The former refers to ligatures applied to a person to restrain while the latter applies to doors that may be locked with a key. These are very different.