The Primacy Of Peter

[Brennin]

Notice that Peter -- and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He's not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises.

Hahn is obtuse.

Acts 11
11Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, 3saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?’ 4Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step, saying...

Does that sound like they are addressing the pope? No, it does not. Peter was never "pope," the elaborate fictions of the Romish Church notwithstanding.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hahn is obtuse.

Acts 11
11Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him, 3saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?’ 4Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step, saying...

Does that sound like they are addressing the pope? No, it does not. Peter was never "pope," the elaborate fictions of the Romish Church notwithstanding.

It does not matter if it sounds like they are addressing the Pope or not.

Peter holds a primacy amongst the other Apsotles which scripture makes quite clear. That is the point.

 

[Brennin]

It does not matter if it sounds like they are addressing the Pope or not.

Peter holds a primacy amongst the other Apsotles which scripture makes quite clear. That is the point.

Peter's primacy is that of first among equals--no more and no less.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Peter's primacy is that of first among equals--no more and no less.

Keep on believing that.

 

[Brennin]

Keep on believing that.

I will because it is correct, unlike the Romish fiction of papal supremacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I will because it is correct, unlike the Romish fiction of papal supremacy.

For a Christian seeker you seem to disregard scripture.

You claim Matthew 18 mentions Keys and yet that word is not in there. So, am I to believe that your interpretation is correct when you are obviously adding things to the word of God that do not exist?

I think you should start reading scripture with out adding words and your own definitions. Use what God gave you and not what you imagine.

Good luck

 

[Brennin]

For a Christian seeker you seem to disregard scripture.

You claim Matthew 18 mentions Keys and yet that word is not in there. So, am I to believe that your interpretation is correct when you are obviously adding things to the word of God that do not exist?

I think you should start reading scripture with out adding words and your own definitions. Use what God gave you and not what you imagine.

Good luck

I have already gone through this with you. The evangelist does not need to mention "keys" a second time because "binding and loosing" is what the "keys" are all about. Read that until it sinks in.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I have already gone through this with you. The evangelist does not need to mention "keys" a second time because "binding and loosing" is what the "keys" are all about. Read that until it sinks in.

You may want to take a class on history for the time around the scriptures of Isaiah and learn what the Keys represent and how the kingdom and it's hierarchy was setup. This would be a good starting point for you.

Once you have some basics then you can move past your misconceptions that you currently have and see that the Keys represent more than you read in Matthew 18. Once you have past that hurddle then you will finally realize that Peter and the Keys is of importance and it is to designate an office as we see in the Davidic kingdom.

Also, you will understand more once you know that Matthew was written for the Jews who were well learned on OT and Isaiah.

One more piece of advise...

Keep an open mind and be honest with yourself and others and pray.

God Bless and Shalom, may God bring light to you and your future learning.

 

[chestertonrules]

I have already gone through this with you. The evangelist does not need to mention "keys" a second time because "binding and loosing" is what the "keys" are all about. Read that until it sinks in.

Wrong.

Keys are handed to one who is to lead and have authority.

Isaiah 22 is one example where a king gives the keys of the kingdom to his prime minister. This is a way of handing out authority.

Only one person can have the keys to the kingdom, otherwise you have chaos.

You clearly don't understand this, or choose to distort it.

Binding and loosing, on the other hand, refers to the forgiveness of sins only.

 

[Brennin]

Only one person can have the keys to the kingdom, otherwise you have chaos.

That is false, of course.

You clearly don't understand this, or choose to distort it.

Binding and loosing, on the other hand, refers to the forgiveness of sins only.

The only distortions here come from the Romish Church. Keys "bind" and "loose." That is their function.

 

[Brennin]

God Bless and Shalom, may God bring light to you and your future learning.

Same to you!

 

[prodromos]

They support what the correlation represents.

Only in your imagination.

They need not specifically mention the two passages. I believe in this early church when many were Jews and familiar with Isaiah 22 that an explanation would be too elementary for their writings.

Ah, the argument of silence. Since they didn't make any connection, we must assume that it was so basic to their understanding that they wrote nothing for fear that their readers would say, "Well duh. Like, did you even need to mention it."

I don't think you will even find too many Catholics supporting you in this argument.


John

 

[prodromos]

It speaks of the Keys as only belonging to Peter and it is understand this way in the context.

Since Chrysostom stated elsewhere that the Apostle John also holds the keys, it cannot possibly be understood as being exclusive to Peter.

John

 

[prodromos]

Yes, all the Apostles shared a profound and deep understanding of Jesus and the things of Heaven and Earth. But that still does not negate that Peter held a Primacy and it was one of a dynastic nature.

Peter's primacy is not in question, your transferring that to the Papacy is. The Orthodox understanding is that all bishops are Peter's successors.

Even during the time of the Apostle John the Bishop of Rome was sought for authority in cases that needed something higher then the Bishop of a region and not John himself.

You have no knowledge of the history and culture of Corinth. Though situated in the middle of Greece it was completely populated by Romans. All their cultural and religious ties were to Rome, they had regular trade and correspondence with Rome. Clement had been a companion of Paul's when he had established the churches of Corinth and Rome and was a living link to their founder. The Apostle John had nothing to do with the establishment of these churches. His sphere of influence fell over Asia Minor. Despite being closer geographically, logistically he was much harder to contact.

That right there should tell you that the Bishop of Rome held some kind of higher authority than the other Bishops of other areas including any surviving Apostle.

This is what happens when you draw conclusions based on partial knowledge.

John

 

[prodromos]

But what cannot be negated by any of this is that Peter holds a primacy over all the others

among the others

and it was only Peter that received the Keys.

We've shown this to be false several times. Your persistence with this falsehood only makes you look stupid.

Fact is that scriptures did not mention the Keys in Matthew 18 when the other Apostles were told they could bind and loose.

St Jerome

"...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 on them all alike". (Epistle 146.1)​

St Augustine

"This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)​

St John Chrysostom

"The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -(Homily 54.2-3.)​

The reason is that only one can hold these Keys and place them on their shoulder for the world to see. The Keys are meant to stay with this office until the return of Jesus at which time Jesus again will hold his Keys as we read in Revelations.

Your assertion does not make it so, AND THE KEY OF DAVID IS NOT THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!

 

[prodromos]

Hahn is obtuse.

He starts with a conclusion then reads it back into everything.

It might be worth pointing out that while the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas, Christ had someone else in mind. While Paul was certainly not present in the upper room at Pentecost, all Orthodox icons of the day of Pentecost depict Paul sitting with the other eleven Apostles.

John

 

[prodromos]

For a Christian seeker you seem to disregard scripture.

And you blatantly disregard the Church Fathers.

You claim Matthew 18 mentions Keys and yet that word is not in there. So, am I to believe that your interpretation is correct when you are obviously adding things to the word of God that do not exist?

Your argument is with the doctors of the Church:
St Jerome

"...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 on them all alike". (Epistle 146.1)​

St Augustine

"This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)​

St John Chrysostom

"The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -(Homily 54.2-3.)​

John

 

[Brennin]

St Jerome

"...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 on them all alike". (Epistle 146.1)​

St Augustine

"This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)​

St John Chrysostom

"The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -(Homily 54.2-3.)​

Your assertion does not make it so, AND THE KEY OF DAVID IS NOT THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!

Excellent work!

 

[prodromos]

One more piece of advise...

For someone who presumes to teach others, the very least you could do is learn how to spell.

 

[prodromos]

Keys are handed to one who is to lead and have authority.

Isaiah 22 is one example where a king gives the keys of the kingdom to his prime minister. This is a way of handing out authority.

Only one person can have the keys to the kingdom, otherwise you have chaos.

The kingdom of heaven is present wherever the bishop celebrates the eucharist surrounded by his flock. The bishop holds the keys.

Binding and loosing, on the other hand, refers to the forgiveness of sins only.

Several Church Fathers disagree with you. I may try and find them again later if I have time.

John