"What" are the keys?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by OrthodoxyUSA "What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?

My answer is, they are the sacraments.

Looks like this is going to be a good "battle" between the RCC and EOC, with the Protestants caught in the middle.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7259458-101/#post47798182
Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah The following is the view of a Greek Orthodox priest, who is part of the Orthodox Research Institute. I'd share the link but I don't think that's allowed anymore. The whole article is extensive but it simply develops these thoughts more fully.

The Father is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...

Opinions - opinions and more opinions -----Let's take a look at what modern Orthodox scholars do concede to the Catholic understanding of papal primacy, authority, and infallibility.

Taken from THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992

1) There is no systematic doctrine of Church government in the Orthodox Church and therefore it is not enough to refute Universal Primacy

"As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy." (Afanassieff, page 92)
========================================================================
(2) The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called "priority") and Orthodox scholars generally concede this
on ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 96 AD)
"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement was 'president' of the Roman Church...." (page 124)
"The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (page 125-126)
on ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 AD)
"We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase 'which presides' in two passages.... The Roman Church 'presides' in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term 'which presides' [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church...[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord....In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." (page 126-127)
on ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
<B>"We shall find other evidence about the Roman position in Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. His -Adversus Heareses- contains a famous passage, which has provoked a great many arguments. This is unquestionably the most important document of all with regard to the position of the Roman Chuch....Irenaeus calls on Apostolic Tradition to correct the mistaken heretics. This Tradition, he says, is guarded in every local church by the succession of bishops. It was not in his power to find proof of this in each local church, so he confines himself to one set of bishops only, and enumerates the bishops of Rome, a church in which Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind have been guarded up to his own times....Irenaeus believed he could confine himself to enumerating the succession in a single church, viz. the Roman Church, although he might have enumerated the successive bishops in every local church, as he says himself. He gives his own explanation for choosing the Church of Rome: he saw it as

'the very great and the very ancient church, known to all, which the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul founded and constituted.'
​

</B>
"...Irenaeus insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more manifest way. Later, Irenaeus points to this Church -- Rome -- as the one to which all other churches must -convenire-....I think a likelier sense of -convenire- here is 'address oneself to,' 'turn to,' 'have recourse to.' The sense of the remark would then be: every local church should have recourse to the Church of Rome....This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches."
"Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...." (page 128f, 133)
on ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
"...according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church....According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]." (page 98-99)
========================================================================
(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this -- and to deny this is based purely on "anti-Roman prejudice"
"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local 'centers of agreement' or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy....
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.
"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history -- an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7259458/#post51969933

Mod Hat On​

I have to split this thread into 3 parts because of its size. This will take me a while so I am going to migrate the latest posts first so that discussion can continue and close the main thread.
Ultimately there will be 2 closed threads capped at 1000 posts and the current open one.
Sorry for any inconvenience.​

 

[Yarddog]

"What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?



My answer is, they are the sacraments.

God be gracious to me a sinner?

My answer is the cross.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

My answer is the cross.

We don't hear that very often.

"The keys are the cross."

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Yab Yum]

How do you know? ... How do you know ... How do you know? ... Do you know ... Do you know ... How do you know?

You seem to have caught a little of the Enlightenment anxiety disease. Usually I take a tylenol, make some chamomile tea and go read some Aquinas.

... Jesus had rebuked them for following.

Jesus rebukes the Jews for following Torah? Interesting I'll have to go try to find those passages.

We, each and individually, may know the truth and find the way of eternal life on our own with nothing more than the Scriptures.

We may, sure. We may also try to find our way to God using nothing more than rocks and trees. But will we be successful? You seem to think so. I disagree with you. Perhaps I'm not as skilled in such matters. Now what? Who's going to be our court of appeals?

It is not about you and a pope or you and a cardinal or you and a bishop or you and any other person, believer or not. It is about each one of us knowing, believing and following what God has painstakingly ... made knowable to us ...

What?! Good grief I never thought of it that way before!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by OrthodoxyUSA "What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?

My answer is the cross.

We don't hear that very often.

"The keys are the cross."

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Now that I can agree with, along with the faith that is of Jesus, along with that of Abraham

I believe the "cross and faith" could be symbolizing the "great gulf/chasm" in Luke 16:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7436472-4/#post54015375
Luke 16:26 and the great "chasm/gulf".

Luke 16:26
And upon all of these between us[NC/Faith] and ye[OC/Law] a great chasm hath been established.
So that those willing to cross-over hence toward ye no may be able, neither thence toward us may be ferrying

Textus Rec.) Luke 16:26 kai epi pasin toutoiV metaxu hmwn kai umwn casma mega esthriktai
opwV oi qelonteV diabhnai *enteuqen proV umaV mh dunwntai mhde oi ekeiqen proV hmaV diaperwsin

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Lazarus
Moses vs Abraham

What is the "great gulf" which stands between the rich man and Lazarus?
Paul aptly explains it to us in the 11th chapter of Romans. He tells us that God has blinded the Jews and "given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day" (Rom. 11:8). He goes on to say that "a partial hardening would happen to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in" (Rom. 11:25). In II Corinthians 3:14-15, Paul says that the Jews' "minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart."

The "great gulf" mentioned by Abraham is nothing less than God's blinding in this age of the Jews as a whole to the truth about their Messiah! It's not that the Jewish nation won't acknowledge Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah; they cannot recognize his true identity because of God's actions! Yet because of the Eternal Father's great mercy, this state of affairs will not last forever (Rom. 11:26).

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I'm afraid I've caught poetry.

Don't worry sir... I used to suffer from short stories myself.

When was that?

Oh... Once upon a time...

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Kristos]

What if we are the keys? Each of us created uniquely with our own strengths and weakness - talents, each with a unique capacity for worshiping God. Each of us a key that unlocks a room in the heavenly mansion prepared for us? Given unto Peter/the apostles/Church leaders as sheep to the shepherd, how lead us in the way of the Good Shepherd in His ministry given by Him in person.

Probably not very patristic, but it's an interesting analogy

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Yarddog My answer is the cross.

Originally Posted by OrthodoxyUSA

We don't hear that very often.

"The keys are the cross."
​

​

Now that I can agree with, along with the faith that is of Jesus, along with that of Abraham

I believe the "cross and faith" could be symbolizing the "great gulf/chasm" in Luke 16:
.

I'm afraid I've caught poetry.

Don't worry sir... I used to suffer from short stories myself.

When was that?

Oh... Once upon a time...

God be gracious to me a sinner.

What are you babbling about Ortho?


.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What if we are the keys? Each of us created uniquely with our own strengths and weakness - talents, each with a unique capacity for worshiping God. Each of us a key that unlocks a room in the heavenly mansion prepared for us? Given unto Peter/the apostles/Church leaders as sheep to the shepherd, how lead us in the way of the Good Shepherd in His ministry given by Him in person.

Probably not very patristic, but it's an interesting analogy

Nice!

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G4166 matches the Greek &#960;&#959;&#953;&#956;&#8053;&#957; (poim&#275;n), which occurs 18 times in 17 verses in the Greek concordance
4166. poimen poy-mane' of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively):--shepherd, pastor.

Hbr 13:20
And the God of the peace, who did bring up out of the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep -- in the blood of an age-during covenant -- our Lord Jesus,

Almost all Bible versions render this greek word #4165 as "rule/ing", but it can also mean "shepherding", which I believe is a better rendering of it:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G4165 matches the Greek &#960;&#959;&#953;&#956;&#945;&#8055;&#957;&#969; (poimain&#333;), which occurs 11 times in 11 verses in the Greek concordance
4165. poimaino poy-mah'-ee-no from 4166; to tend as a shepherd of (figuratively, superviser):--feed (cattle), rule.

Rev 12:5
and she brought forth a male child, who is about to shepherding all the nations with a rod of iron,
and caught away was her child unto God and His throne,

Reve 19:15
and out of His mouth doth proceed a sharp sword, that with it He may smite the nations, and He shall be shepherding them with a rod of iron,
and He doth tread the press of the wine of the wrath and the fury of God the Almighty,

Shepherd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A shepherd (pron.: /&#712;&#643;&#603;p&#601;rd/), or sheepherder, is a person who tends, feeds, or guards flocks of sheep. The word stems from an amalgam of sheep herder





.

 

[Standing Up]

"What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?



My answer is, they are the sacraments.

God be gracious to me a sinner?

As usual with a number of doctrines (easter, baptism, virgin), there were basically two traditions that developed, only one of which that actually ties to apostles/scripture.

In this case of the keys of the kingdom, we know Rome's position of pressuming Petrine authority. EO, of course, disagrees with their interpretation. I'm not sure what EO's official position is on the keys.

The other tradition (Tertullian) is what scripture says. These keys were given to Peter alone. He then opened the door to the kingdom when he first preached to Jews and to Gentiles.

After that, the door is opened permanently. Gates of hell won't prevail (Mt). Opened a door no one can close (Rev). The keys to the kingdom no longer are needed or used.

But, circling back to the other tradition, some believe they still have those keys and the door is closed, unless you come to their way, truth, life.

 

[Catherineanne]

"What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?



My answer is, they are the sacraments.

God be gracious to me a sinner?

Good question, good answer.

I think it was St Catherine of Sienna who said that obedience is the key to the gates of heaven. It could have been someone else, but whoever it was, I like that thought.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

My answer is, they are the sacraments.

God be gracious to me a sinner?

The keys are the mysteries that are encapsulated inside the sacraments. but there are other ways of accessing them .. as they are given from God directly.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What if we are the keys?

 

[Yarddog]

Each of us a key that unlocks a room in the heavenly mansion prepared for us?

Jesus is the door or gate through which we all must enter. He died, on the cross and the blood of that cross washes us clean. Jesus said, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."

We each have a cross which we must take with us where ever we go.

I had a vision a few years back where I saw a cross standing alone in a field. A large hand reached down from heaven and grasped the cross by its base and lifted it up to heaven. The cross was then turned on its side and inserted into a lock which protected the door and kept the unworthy out. The lock was opened and entrance was granted to the one who possessed the cross, the key which opens the door(Jesus), into heaven.

 

[Kristos]

As usual with a number of doctrines (easter, baptism, virgin), there were basically two traditions that developed, only one of which that actually ties to apostles/scripture.

In this case of the keys of the kingdom, we know Rome's position of pressuming Petrine authority. EO, of course, disagrees with their interpretation. I'm not sure what EO's official position is on the keys.

The other tradition (Tertullian) is what scripture says. These keys were given to Peter alone. He then opened the door to the kingdom when he first preached to Jews and to Gentiles.

After that, the door is opened permanently. Gates of hell won't prevail (Mt). Opened a door no one can close (Rev). The keys to the kingdom no longer are needed or used.

But, circling back to the other tradition, some believe they still have those keys and the door is closed, unless you come to their way, truth, life.

I think it's more that the way is narrow than the door is locked...unless you think that everyone who cries Lord, Lord enters the Kingdom.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How come no one is responding to my posts


.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

[/indent]What are you babbling about Ortho?


.

It's a Monte Python joke. Something Yarddog said prompted it.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[miamited]

You seem to have caught a little of the Enlightenment anxiety disease. Usually I take a tylenol, make some chamomile tea and go read some Aquinas.

I generally choose reading the Scriptures when I want to know the truth.

Jesus rebukes the Jews for following Torah? Interesting I'll have to go try to find those passages.

Yes, you surely should. I don't know what you consider 'following Torah', and whether or not you would consider Jesus' rebuke as being about following Torah. However, there is plenty of rebuke for them for following the traditions of men over the truth of God. I always believed Torah to be the truth of God.

We may, sure. We may also try to find our way to God using nothing more than rocks and trees. But will we be successful? You seem to think so. I disagree with you. Perhaps I'm not as skilled in such matters. Now what? Who's going to be our court of appeals?

Yes, one surely may and there are religions that actually teach that that is the truth. It's called pantheism. However, Jesus hasn't told me that I can find the truth in a rock or tree. He has told me that I can find it in the Scriptures. I would say that your claim that I seem to think that we can find the truth of God in a rock or tree as a very great misunderstanding of what I wrote. Certianly not something that God's Holy Spirit led you to understand.

Court of appeals. Friend, there is no court of appeals. God has given us the truth through the vehicle of the Scriptures, just as Jesus and Paul confirm. There is no court of appeals. We will either believe it. Pray for the indwelling Holy Spirit for understanding of it. And abide in it.

What?! Good grief I never thought of it that way before!

May God bless you as you seek Him.
In Christ, Ted

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

"What" are the keys mentioned in Matthew 16:19?



My answer is, they are the sacraments.

You would be wrong. The key is the Spirit of knowledge and understanding contained in the Living Word of God.

Try not to make the same mistake as those lawyers did who hindered others from entering by way of their own lack of knowledge and understanding.

Luke 11:52
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

 

[Noxot]

the key of david, he was a man after Gods heart right?

Rev 3:7 (YLT)
`And to the messenger of the assembly in Philadelphia write: These things saith he who is holy, he who is true, he who is having the key of David, he who is opening and no one doth shut, and he shutteth and no one doth open!

Isa 22:22 (YLT)
And I have placed the key Of the house of David on his shoulder, And he hath opened, and none is shutting, And hath shut, and none is opening.

i found this to be amazing.
The Number 528 - THE KEY
http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_528.php