Keys

[WarriorAngel]

Isaias 22
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 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. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.


Matthew 16
That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.



Revelation 3
6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. 7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.

[Yeznik]

Isaias 22
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 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. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.


Matthew 16
That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.



Revelation 3
6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. 7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.

When I get a chance, I will go through the catechism book of Saint Gregory to get the actual quote regarding the Keys.

[WarriorAngel]

Actual quote? :scratch:

Revelation, the last thing St John wrote, shows us Christ is specifically speaking about the keys He gave to the Apostle Peter.

There are only one set of Keys that stem from David, and Jesus handed them to Peter.
To 'open 'loosed' or to 'shut' 'bind'.

[Knowledge3]

Rome (The Roman Catholic Church) seems to have broken away and established herself as a church independent of the other sees.

[WarriorAngel]

Rome (The Roman Catholic Church) seems to have broken away and established herself as a church independent of the other sees.

I dont think anyone sees the difficult task here.

First of all, there are many accusations that the Pope walked away. That is simply not true.



LINK (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm) ...
It was the persistent attempt of the emperor's patriarch to become a kind of Eastern pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), as nearly as possible equal to his Western prototype, that was the real source of all the trouble. On the one hand, union under Constantinople really made a kind of rival Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) that could be opposed to Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm); on the other hand, through all the career of advancement of the Byzantine bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) they found only one real hindrance, the persistent opposition of the popes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). The emperor was their friend and chief ally always. It was, indeed, the emperor's policy of centralization that was responsible for the scheme of making the See of Constantinople a centre. The other patriarchs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm) who were displaced were not dangerous opponents. Weakened by the endless Monophysite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm) quarrels, having lost most of their flocks, then reduced to an abject state by the Moslem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm) conquest, the bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01302a.htm) and Antioch could not prevent the growth of Constantinople. Indeed, eventually, they accepted their degradation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04677c.htm) willingly and came to be idle ornaments of the new patriarch's Court. Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344x.htm) too was hampered by schisms (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm) and Moslems (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm) and was itself a new patriarchate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm), having only the rights (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm) of the last see of the five. ...etc

On the other hand, at every step in the advancement of Constantinople there was always the opposition of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm). When the new see got its titular honour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm) at the First Council of Constantinople (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm) (381, can.3), Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) refused to accept the canon (she was not represented at the council); when Chalcedon in 451 turned this into a real patriarchate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm) (can. 28) the legates (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09118a.htm) and then the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) himself refused to acknowledge what had been done; when, intoxicated by their quick advancement, the successors of the little suffragan bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm) who had once obeyed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm) Heraclea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07242b.htm) assumed the insolent title "oecumenical patriarch", it was again a pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) of Old Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) who sternly rebuked their arrogance. We can understand that jealousy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08326b.htm) and hatred (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm) of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm) rankled in the minds (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10321a.htm) of the new patriarchs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm), that they were willing to throw off altogether an authority which was in their way at every step. That the rest of the East joined them in their rebellion was the natural result of the authority they had succeeded in usurping over the other Eastern bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm). So we arrive at the essential consideration in this question. The Eastern Schism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm) was not a movement arising in all the East; it was not a quarrel between two large bodies; it was essentially the rebellion of one see, Constantinople, which by the emperor's favour had already acquired such influence that it was able unhappily to drag the other patriarchs (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm) into schism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm) with it.








Link to more. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm)

[zhilan]

WA,

What is your point in this forum? Do you have a Catholic apologetics book that you are trying to post for us?

[xristos.anesti]

WA,

What is your point in this forum? Do you have a Catholic apologetics book that you are trying to post for us?

I wonder that - often.

Anyway - as we said before - all the Apostles had the keys.

If it was only St. Peter - then our Pope is the one in Antioch for we know (for sure) that one is Orthodox and has no heretical innovations.

Enough with Rome.

Many years.

[Macarius]

Isaias 22
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 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. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.

I'm going to do something I swore to myself I wouldn't on these boards - I'm going to rant a little. I ask in advance for your forgiveness - none of this is personal, I promise... it's just a pent up frustration... I know you to be a sincere christian, I just get... :sick:

This is why I'm not Roman Catholic. This kind of exegesis right here. That prophecy refers to CHRIST. CHRIST is the father of Jerusalem, the inheritor of David, the head of the Church. CHRIST IS THE KING. When Roman Catholics apply these prophecies to the pope, it reminds me the usurping Israelites denouncing the authority of the King in Jerusalem. This is true for EVERY passage you quoted here.



Matthew 16
That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


The vast majority of early church fathers saw the rock as being Peter's confession - or Christ himself (Augustine's view). And what is the earliest that this passage is interpreted in the RCC way in full? Find me the earliest referance you can which says that this passage not only applies to Peter, but promised him infallibility, and promises that infallibility to his successors, and that those successors are only the Roman bishops (not Antioch or Alexandria). My guess is its quite late.

We take these passages which were intended to give God glory, to affirm the majesty and lordship of Christ, and we turn them into the justification for a man's authority. I cannot stand that pride. Of these three, Matt 16 tees me off the least because at least some early churchmen saw it as referring to Peter... but still! To wield this text like the proof-text bludgeon that it's wielded as seems almost abusive and takes the focus away from the TRUTH which Peter had professed by the Father's good will and places the emphasis not on Peter but on his successors, assuming (as the passage gives no indication) that his successors will continue to proclaim the truth even as he once did.


Revelation 3
6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. 7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.


Again, this refers to CHRIST. IT IS THE HOLY AND TRUE ONE WHO HOLDS THE KEYS, THE ONE WHO IS SPEAKING IS THE WORD OF GOD - CHRIST. This passage completey affirms that the first one from Isaiah refers to Christ. The opened door is the path to salvation. Once opened - by Christ's decent into death and conquest of it - it cannot be closed. Death is conquered.

So, to sound bite - stop taking Christ's glory and giving it to the Pope! :priest: Christ is the only head of the church - it needs not earthly vicar to act in His stead.

[xristos.anesti]

...

[Knowledge3]

I dont think anyone sees the difficult task here.

First of all, there are many accusations that the Pope walked away. That is simply not true.

I have a solution.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.11.en.the_ecclesiology_of_st._ignatius_of_antioch.01.htm#s7

7) The basis for equality of bishops.


The origin of the patristic insistence on the equality of all bishops (e. g. St. Cyprian, Sententiae Episcoporum, op. 1) can be understood only in terms of the presuppositions 1) that the corporate eucharistic life locally manifested is an end in itself, 2) that individual communities are related to each other by their identity of existence in Christ, 3) that the fullness of Christ dwells in the faithful who gather together in the life of Christ epi to auto, and 4) that the episcopate is an inseparable part of this local life epi to auto. The order of the episcopate was not something that existed in itself, or itself, and over or apart from the local Church. It was definitely within the Church, and since the visible Church could be defined only in terms of the body of Christ locally manifested in its mystagogical life, the episcopate was definitely of local character. The existence of bishops in the smallest and remotest villages of the empire cannot be explained otherwise than in terms of the necessity to have a bishop and council of presbyters within and responsible for the life of each eucharistic center. Therefore bishops were equal because communities were equal. One local manifestation of the body of Christ could not be more body of Christ or less than another. Likewise the living image of Christ (the bishop) could not be more image or less image than another image because Christ, whose image the bishops are, is identically One and Equal with Himself.

Communities without bishops appeared for the first time in large cities where the overgrown Christian population could not be accommodated any longer in one liturgical center. Whereas in the city of Alexandria the various liturgical centers at first had each a bishop (P. Trembelas, Taxeis Cheirothesion kai Cheirotonion, Athens 1949, p. 26-29, n.), in Rome not only were presbyters appointed to the different liturgical centers, but were originally not given permission to administer the Eucharist. Rather a portion of the already consecrated elements was sent from the bishop's liturgy to the faithful gathered together at the lesser centers. When finally the presbyters did receive permission to celebrate the liturgy, the bishop of Rome continued to send a portion of the consecrated elements from his own liturgy to be put into the chalices of the lesser eucharistic centers. This practise continued in Rome until the 14th century and did not completely disappear until 1870. (Dom G. Dix, op. cit. p. 21.) Thus the Churches in Rome very early lost the meaning of the Eucharist as an end in itself and vividly introduced the idea that the office of the bishop is rather something in itself and that somehow the elements consecrated at the bishop's liturgy were somewhat superior to those consecrated at the liturgy of presbyters.

Most probably because of the initial refusal of the original city communities to install bishops in the newly-founded communities of the same city, it became normal in cities to have local Churches with presbyters celebrating the liturgy. When this became a normative practise in the big cities, the bishop of the city became much more authoritative than the village bishop who was still the bishop of one community. This, plus the fact that the bishop of the city was very influentially situated, obviously introduced the idea that he was somehow more important than the village bishop. Gradually the village bishop was deprived of some of his most important functions and subjected to the surveillance of the city bishop. "... even though they may have received episcopal ordination (cheirothesian) ... let them dare not ordain neither presbyters nor deacons without the city bishop to whom he and his village is subject." (Canon 10 of Antioch; Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Peri Chorepiscopon, Athens 1935, p. 8-10). In the Church of North Africa of the late 4th century one could still find small village communities with a bishop and only one presbyter. (Canon 55 of Carthage, H. Alibizatos, The Holy Canons, Athens 1949, p. 254.) Progressively, however, St. Ignatius' conception of the bishop in terms of the local eucharistic life as an end in itself is either mitigated or completely forgotten, and the episcopate conforms to the political structure of the empire. Because the city Churches had become accustomed to the existence of communities with presbyters celebrating the mysteries, it is obvious that the village bishop, having already been deprived of his rights to ordain his own presbyters and deacons, was in reality of no more importance than a presbyter of a city Church. [ 17 ] Thus the city bishops could see no reason why the village Churches should have a bishop at all since the city communities were functioning quite well with presbyters. Therefore, "one must not establish bishops in the town and villages, but travelers: those, however, already established must do nothing without the opinion of the bishop in the city." (Canon 57 of Laodicia.) Very characteristic of the new mentality is the 6th canon of the Council of Sardica: "It is forbidden to simply establish a bishop in some town, or small hamlet, where only one presbyter suffices. For it is not necessary to establish bishops there, that the name and authority of the bishop may not be cheapened."

[Yeznik]

Taken from, “The Teachings of Saint Gregory”, translated from the ancient Armenian into modern (British) English by the Professor Robert Thomson, sometimes referred to the Armenian Book of Catechism.

468. The Apostles became the foundations [Eph 2.20], and received the grace of priesthood and the prophecy and apostleship and knowledge of the heavenly mystery which came in the seed of Abraham, which John, the keeper of the tradition of inheritance, gave to the Lord, and the Lord gave to the Apostles. And He gave the Keys of the Kingdom into their hands [Mt. 16.19], because of the Son of God Himself was the gave for those who enter [Jn 10.7,9]; concerning whom the prophet declared: “ This is the gate of the Lord, and the just enter through it [Ps/ 117.20] .” So John gave the priesthood and the anointing and the prophecy and the kingship to our Savior Christ; and Christ gave them to the Apostles, and the Apostles to the clergy.

Our beloved Saint Gregory the Illuminator champion of the universal an orthodox faith, who is revered amongst all Ancient Churches, is the grounds for setting straight the claim stated by the Roman Catholic Church in regards to only Saint Peter was given the Key.

Saint Gregory, also known as Saint Gregory the Parthian, was raised in Cappedocia when his family fled from Armenia when he was just a child. Long story short, he grew up as a Christian, later went to Armenia served the Kings council, was tortured for The Faith by the King and throw into a pit, at that time the King went mad and turned into a warthog type creature, later Saint Gregory was raised from the pit to heal the diseased King, and later converted Armenia into the first Christian Nation in the world.

The Armenian and the Roman Catholic’s share a deep love and appreciation for this Saint, and this is one of the major binding Saints that binds, the Roman Catholic Church and the Armenian Church.

Saint Gregory is called the patron Saint of Armenia. The Roman Catholic’s who showed much appreciation to this Saint installed a statue of him at Saint Peters basilica within the last several years.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Saint Gregory was ordained by a bishop of the Catholic Church, Leontius of Caesarea. Since the claim that Saint Gregory was indeed ordained by a Catholic bishop only provides further support that in the early centuries, the idea of the Pope only having the Keys to the Kingdom is false is by several examples:

1) Since Saint Gregory was taught by Catholic’s since childhood, and if the teaching of Saint Peter being the only one having the Keys, then this would have been ingrained in him from his upbringing.

2) If Saint Gregory was ordained by Catholic’s to be the Catholico’s (Metropolitan) of Armenia then Saint Gregory was a qualified teacher of the True and Orthodox Faith and in his teachings he specifically mentions the Keys are given to all the Apostles. Secondly, Saint Gregory mentions the foundation of the Church being on all the Apostles and not solely Peter.
3) The key factor between Saint Gregory’s teaching and comments made by other Saints is very distinguishable in its entirety and context.
a) Saint Gregory is teaching an entire nation Christianity, if his teaching was incorrect regarding Saint Peter being sole bearer of the Keyes then Saint Gregory would have been corrected by other bishops.
b) The Armenian Catholico’s was the regional bishop for a period of time ordaining bishops in neighboring nations, specifically Georgia. So the neighboring nations, if they needed to be corrected, would have been while attending councils with other Churches.

I can continue at request.

[a_ntv]

I have a solution.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.11.en.the_ecclesiology_of_st._ignatius_of_antioch.01.htm#s7

7) The basis for equality of bishops.

Interesting article

There are two main ministries of the bishops:
- the sacramental one: all bishops are equal from the sacramental point of view: the catholic church perfectly agree with it (and the article, based on the protestant Dix, says falsities about Rome: the Eucharist of the pope was never considered 'superior' than the Eucharist celebrated by simply priests)
- the jurisdictional/pastoral ministries: also here the CC agree all the bishops are equal as successor of the 12, but the pope has his separate ministry from the being the successor of Peter.

An other result of it is the correct understanding that the patriarcates were not of divin origin, but they were the simply the result of the aggregation of many bishops under the important bishop of the capital town.
That is true: the patriarchates were born in the IV cantury when the east church took the structure of the bizantine empire, who was administrativly divided in regions (diocesys in latin), each one depending from a town (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea-later moved to Costaninoples).
That in the East.

In the West it was different: there were no patriarchates, but only Rome stand.

Why?
Let's go to the Gospels:
Jesus said I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven two times:
- one time to Peter (the pope) alone (Mt 16:19)
- one time to all the 12 (the bishops) toghether (Mt 18:18)

So, for the jurisdictional/pastoral ministies, the CC balances the power of the pope with the power of the collegue of the bishops, each one being ordinary, but each one needing the others: the pope needs to be in communion with the bishops, the bishops needs to be in communion with the pope.

This is the reason the catholics cannot agree with the EO idea of Patriarchs as heaven fixed: Jesus instituited the pope and the bishops, not the patriarchs

[xristos.anesti]

This is the reason the catholics cannot agree with the EO idea of Patriarchs as heaven fixed: Jesus instituited the pope and the bishops, not the patriarchs



Actually, last time I checked -

Jesus instituted apostles -

and apostles in turn instituted bishops.

But maybe you read a different holy book from mine.

;)

[Macarius]

You are aware that we don't actually theologically support patriarchates, right?

Each bishop is, theologically speaking, the highest authority in his diocese. No patriarch can remove another bishop, nor can a patriarch hear appeals between disagreeing bishops (the regional synod hears them), nor can a patriarch move priests around underneath a bishop, or add a priest to a bishop, or take a priest from a bishop. The patriarchs are products of the capitol city of an area (or a traditional city like Jerusalem or Constantinople) having additional honor and so acting as a mouthpiece and organizer and figurehead for the regional synod - for the church among that people group.

This is why we fervently believe what Canon 28 of the 2nd Ecumenical council teaches: that the primacy of one see or another is due to the appointment of the church and is a product of civil or traditional fame, not theology.

One way I heard it stated was that for the Orthodox, the church is "bishop = bishop = bishop = bishop" where for the RCC the Church is "bishop + bishop + bishop + bishop + the pope = church."

To us, each bishop celebrating the eucharist with the laity, deacons, and presbyters is the church in its complete form. All the councils and cannons and such are just to aid bishoprics in handling inter-bishop relationships. There is no authority above the bishop because each bishop is fully the icon of Christ, possessing the keys, serving the eucharist, teaching the faithful. The only authority above the bishop is the high priest and king of our faith: Christ.

If you want to interpret Matt 16 v 18 the way you just did, I ask that you provide me with the earliest patristic interpretation that matches your own. It is my claim, my fervent claim, that the RCC's interpretation of Matt 16 is an innovation. Certainly, a decent percentage of early fathers believed that the rock was referring to Peter, but far more disagreed. I don't know of even one that ascribed the Pope infallibility, and I don't know of one (at least through the early third century - I'm not as well read after that) who felt that Peter's recieving the keys first (before the other apostles in Matt 18) afforded him or his successors in Rome alone (as opposed to his successors elsewhere) any special authority.

If this is apostolic tradition, I would expect it to show up earlier. It doesn't. The papacy's authority within the church doesn't really start to develop until the late fourth century, and the justifications (and forgeries to add additional justification) follow close behind it.

So far as I've been able to find, the first source to interpret Matt 16 as the RCC does is from the late 6th century. That's awfully late for a doctrine that has so horrendously divided christians.

[WarriorAngel]

WA,

What is your point in this forum? Do you have a Catholic apologetics book that you are trying to post for us?

Nope, I dont have a book.
Oddly, its all on whim the 'answers' come to me.

But I pray for unity, and for unity all sides must have an understanding ...
So we can as laity understand how the 'other side' works and where it comes from.

For instance I understand the EO...I understand that they do not define doctrines. Which only makes sense the more I look into it.

More on this later.....

I wonder that - often.

Anyway - as we said before - all the Apostles had the keys.

If it was only St. Peter - then our Pope is the one in Antioch for we know (for sure) that one is Orthodox and has no heretical innovations.

Enough with Rome.

Many years.

Ok, you say all had the keys, but I dont see any specific notation from Christ on that.
And I havent seen that written about in the first 5-600 years of the Church.

I'm going to do something I swore to myself I wouldn't on these boards - I'm going to rant a little. I ask in advance for your forgiveness - none of this is personal, I promise... it's just a pent up frustration... I know you to be a sincere christian, I just get... :sick:

This is why I'm not Roman Catholic. This kind of exegesis right here. That prophecy refers to CHRIST. CHRIST is the father of Jerusalem, the inheritor of David, the head of the Church. CHRIST IS THE KING. When Roman Catholics apply these prophecies to the pope, it reminds me the usurping Israelites denouncing the authority of the King in Jerusalem. This is true for EVERY passage you quoted here.



You are correct that in Isaias
the prophecy is Christ... we must understand in Isaias's that the keys are in Christ's hands to begin with...
YET in Matthew He gave those keys to Peter.
Not to all, but to Peter.

In Revelation it is not about Christ holding the keys, because it is Christ speaking and referring to the 'little faith' which is not Christ who had little faith, but the confession of Peter.

See?

The vast majority of early church fathers saw the rock as being Peter's confession - or Christ himself (Augustine's view). And what is the earliest that this passage is interpreted in the RCC way in full? Find me the earliest referance you can which says that this passage not only applies to Peter, but promised him infallibility, and promises that infallibility to his successors, and that those successors are only the Roman bishops (not Antioch or Alexandria). My guess is its quite late.

AS I just said, look at Revelation, it is the keys handed to Peter because of his confession.
Its pretty clear.


We take these passages which were intended to give God glory, to affirm the majesty and lordship of Christ, and we turn them into the justification for a man's authority. I cannot stand that pride. Of these three, Matt 16 tees me off the least because at least some early churchmen saw it as referring to Peter... but still! To wield this text like the proof-text bludgeon that it's wielded as seems almost abusive and takes the focus away from the TRUTH which Peter had professed by the Father's good will and places the emphasis not on Peter but on his successors, assuming (as the passage gives no indication) that his successors will continue to proclaim the truth even as he once did.



Again, this refers to CHRIST. IT IS THE HOLY AND TRUE ONE WHO HOLDS THE KEYS, THE ONE WHO IS SPEAKING IS THE WORD OF GOD - CHRIST. This passage completey affirms that the first one from Isaiah refers to Christ. The opened door is the path to salvation. Once opened - by Christ's decent into death and conquest of it - it cannot be closed. Death is conquered.

So, to sound bite - stop taking Christ's glory and giving it to the Pope! :priest: Christ is the only head of the church - it needs not earthly vicar to act in His stead.

Christ handed it to Peter, the ministry and position.
The Pope cannot take Christ's glory, but he should exemplify it on earth.

Furthermore, I am not hoping anyone converts...
BUT that the laity understand the Pope better and will pray for unity.

Honestly, there is such disgust for the Pope, and the list includes calling him a heretic, a dictator, and a host of other untrue references.

IF you can see him for what he is, you may not hate him as much.

Many Eastern brethren follow the Constantinople and claim him to be new Rome...yet Rome never agreed to that.
SO how was that based upon an entire Church decision?

:sigh:

[Yeznik]

This is getting silly, so the silliness must commence.

Since the Roman Catholic's believe that only the Pope holds the Key, then where happens to the Key between an Popes death and a newly elected Pope? Maybe the Pope leaves the Keys on the kitchen table. :D

[a_ntv]

This is getting silly, so the silliness must commence.

Since the Roman Catholic's believe that only the Pope holds the Key, then where happens to the Key between an Popes death and a newly elected Pope? Maybe the Pope leaves the Keys on the kitchen table. :D

:D :)

Jesus said I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven two times:
- one time to Peter (the pope) alone (Mt 16:19)
- one time to all the 12 (the bishops) toghether (Mt 18:18)

So, for the jurisdictional/pastoral ministies, the CC balances the power of the pope with the power of the collegue of the bishops, each one being ordinary, but each one needing the others: the pope needs to be in communion with the bishops, the bishops needs to be in communion with the pope.

This view units the two main visions of the Church:
- an Escatological Church, single, united and ordinated in the heaven as well in the earth.
- an Eucharistical Church, made one by the Eucharist, celebrated personally or by delegates in many particular churches each one by the own bishop.

Jesus never said: bishops over the pope, or the pope over the bishops (nor the Bizantine Emperator over the EO bishops as it was till 1450): Jesus said that who want to be the first, he shall serve: so the structure of the church is made that any necessary power is balanced by (=shall be in communion with ) an other power.

[a_ntv]

You are aware that we don't actually theologically support patriarchates, right?

Each bishop is, theologically speaking, the highest authority in his diocese. No patriarch can remove another bishop, nor can a patriarch hear appeals between disagreeing bishops (the regional synod hears them), nor can a patriarch move priests around underneath a bishop, or add a priest to a bishop, or take a priest from a bishop. The patriarchs are products of the capitol city of an area (or a traditional city like Jerusalem or Constantinople) having additional honor and so acting as a mouthpiece and organizer and figurehead for the regional synod - for the church among that people group.

This is why we fervently believe what Canon 28 of the 2nd Ecumenical council teaches: that the primacy of one see or another is due to the appointment of the church and is a product of civil or traditional fame, not theology.
That is nice.
Please take note that I've nothing against the patriarchs: the church on the earth is an image of the escatological church that is in order in front of Christ.
The patriarchs are part of this order: we respect them.
Simply the ministry of the patriarch was not founded by Christ, as the ministry of the bishops and the ministry of the pope is

One way I heard it stated was that for the Orthodox, the church is "bishop = bishop = bishop = bishop" where for the RCC the Church is "bishop + bishop + bishop + bishop + the pope = church."
Well, studing the EO the structure was The Bizantine Emperator (said 'the Vicar of Christ') over the bishops: he did appointed the synods, chariman the synod, appointed the patriarch and the bishops, fired the patriarch and the bishops who were simply functionaries of the Government.

Anyway there are two visions of the Church in the EO, quite opposite:
- an Escatological Church, single, united and ordinated in the heaven
- an Eucharistical Church, made by each bishop.
The statment "bishop = bishop = bishop = bishop" is typical of the second vision, but this is only a partial view (not true even for the EO): think...when you are asked when the Church was found, you answer: "before the foundation of the world": that is typical of the Escatological vision of the church.
The ancient bizantines were more coherent: they consider that, in similitude to the escatological church, also the eartly Church needed to be in order: one christian empire, one 'vicarius of Christ' (the emperator), patriarchs and order in the church.
This balanced the ecucaristical church made by the bishops: this was very correct, a part from the role of the Vicar of Chirst owned to the pope and not to the emperator.


If you want to interpret Matt 16 v 18 the way you just did, I ask that you provide me with the earliest patristic interpretation that matches your own. It is my claim, my fervent claim, that the RCC's interpretation of Matt 16 is an innovation.
Well, you can look ad instance at the Recognitones by the pseudo Clement, an antiochen text of the IV century which included texts of the I and II century, where (in the ancient part: not after the 130) it was clear that St Peter left the catthedra to St Clement.
Or, if you want to read more famous Fathers, you can read the letters of St Leo.

There are lots of threads in CF on Mt 16:19...I wanted to point out the need to read both Mt 16 and Mt 18...two parallel texts...if you reject Mt 16 (the pope) you shall also reject Mt 18 (the bishops)

[xristos.anesti]

Nope, I dont have a book.
Oddly, its all on whim the 'answers' come to me.

But I pray for unity, and for unity all sides must have an understanding ...
So we can as laity understand how the 'other side' works and where it comes from.

For instance I understand the EO...I understand that they do not define doctrines. Which only makes sense the more I look into it.

More on this later.....

Well sister WA - maybe you should read what we have wrote over the past how many weeks - it not just that you are being repetitious - but due to your non reading of our posts those who argue with you need to repeat things.


Ok, you say all had the keys, but I dont see any specific notation from Christ on that.
And I havent seen that written about in the first 5-600 years of the Church.

In the Mt. 18, 18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is our Lord talking to the apostles - all of them.

So, yes in Mt. 16,19 Christ says to St. Peter about keys and binding and loosing, but here (only couple of "moments" later) He speaks to everyone.



You are correct that in Isaias
the prophecy is Christ... we must understand in Isaias's that the keys are in Christ's hands to begin with...
YET in Matthew He gave those keys to Peter.
Not to all, but to Peter.

In Revelation it is not about Christ holding the keys, because it is Christ speaking and referring to the 'little faith' which is not Christ who had little faith, but the confession of Peter.

See?



AS I just said, look at Revelation, it is the keys handed to Peter because of his confession.
Its pretty clear.

It IS pretty clear that your are wrong - your egsegesis of the texts is wrong, your assumptions are just that - assumptions.

There is no historical record that you can fall onto - in the Church Catholic that provides the base for these assumptions. This has been proven time and time again - yet you remain with your eyes closed.

Christ told all the apostles that they have the power to bind and loose - were they to borrow keys from St. Peter - those keys in that case were communal keys and not only St. Peter's.

If it was only St. Peter that got the keys - can you please answer this question for once: if it was only St. Peter that had the keys and if those keys mean infallibility - why is not Antioch equal as Rome?


Christ handed it to Peter, the ministry and position.
The Pope cannot take Christ's glory, but he should exemplify it on earth.

Furthermore, I am not hoping anyone converts...
BUT that the laity understand the Pope better and will pray for unity.

Christ handed it to all of his disciples - there is no mention of supremacy of Peter in the NT - it is obvious that he was not infallible - only 5 verses after the Key verses - Christ is calling Peter a satan -

St. Peter was not infallible,
not only he had the keys.


Honestly, there is such disgust for the Pope, and the list includes calling him a heretic, a dictator, and a host of other untrue references.

IF you can see him for what he is, you may not hate him as much.

Many Eastern brethren follow the Constantinople and claim him to be new Rome...yet Rome never agreed to that.
SO how was that based upon an entire Church decision?

:sigh:

This is a lie - you are speaking untruth WA - there was so many posts that shown this and now you are saying this.


I posted the canons of the Ecumenical councils (all were accepted by Rome) - you have not answered on any of the posts containing those canons - and now, you say things like these.

Seems to me WA - that were not getting anywhere. You keep posting things and not really reading what is told to you by others.

Post after post you say things that not only make no sense but are showing that you are not reading anything that is posted to you.

Again, read the canons and you will see that "infallible" pope accepted New Rome as such - also did not really had any chance of not doing so - it was imperial decision to move the capitals around - sorry.

So, yes - the decision was based on the WHOLE CHURCH - something West does not know to much about - filioque people.

It is RCC that does things that are not based on the Whole Church.
It is RCC that does not have a clue what word Catholic really means.
It is RCC that went against the Whole of the Church with it's - heterodox - ideas causing schism - it is RCC that has caused so many of them too - exactly due to inovations.
It is RCC that says one things and then her faithful do other (being on one side pope speaking how we are not required to kneel before him - and they people like you WA spend days on forums like these enforcing, teaching, showing - - give us a break.).
It is RCC that changed the Ecumenical creed -going against the canons time and time again...

Wake up.



You ask the question - we answer - you do not read the answer (or dismiss it totally - strike it from memory or whatever else you do) - then you post your "stuff" again - we answer it - you dismiss the answers - .... etc. Merry go round here we go.

You are using these forums to enforce the Latin stuff unto people who really do not care about what popes are teaching.



It is really arduous arguing with you - sorry - really is - but, us Catholics have patience.




Many years.

[WarriorAngel]

This is getting silly, so the silliness must commence.

Since the Roman Catholic's believe that only the Pope holds the Key, then where happens to the Key between an Popes death and a newly elected Pope? Maybe the Pope leaves the Keys on the kitchen table. :D

Yep, keeps them on the table til the next guy gets to pick them up. ;)

Well sister WA - maybe you should read what we have wrote over the past how many weeks - it not just that you are being repetitious - but due to your non reading of our posts those who argue with you need to repeat things.



In the Mt. 18, 18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is our Lord talking to the apostles - all of them.

So, yes in Mt. 16,19 Christ says to St. Peter about keys and binding and loosing, but here (only couple of "moments" later) He speaks to everyone.

AS a_ntv just pointed out, and I pointed out in another thread about the twelve...is that Peter was the leader, but all of them have the power to forgive...
But I am going to add it one step further...
That power derives from the keys Peter holds....
As leader.

Can that be refuted?

Here is Rev again...
9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.


WE do not know exactly what that means...but if I were to take all the prophecies altogether, plus Revelation, then I know a reunification will happen, then this would include the entire Church under this protection...
Because no one says the East are forsaken, but the key holder has a certain role and one that has always been protected by the Holy Spirit.

No where do those keys go to all...
Only the authority to forgive sins or bind them, do all of them have.

The keys themselves were not handed to them all.

They just were not, or Christ would have specified that...
He did not leave these things up to conclusion of men.

He said what He said to ONE man...I give THEE the keys...


It IS pretty clear that your are wrong - your egsegesis of the texts is wrong, your assumptions are just that - assumptions.

You say I am wrong, yet history and scriptures back up what I say.
What if you are wrong?
Ever consider that? :scratch:
If I am wrong, I still am under the Pope who has the keys...
IF you are wrong, then you are not..then what?

:crossrc: Pray for unity.

There is no historical record that you can fall onto - in the Church Catholic that provides the base for these assumptions. This has been proven time and time again - yet you remain with your eyes closed.

Link to earliest Church pictorials on Peter with the keys. Not all twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12294b.htm)
Christ giving the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) to St. Peter. Christ is standing on the globe, His right hand raised and extended, while, with His left, He is handing to St. Peter a roll which the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) receives with veiled hands. The author of this scene, which dates from about the middle of the fourth century, evidently regarded the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) as holding an office under the New Law the counterpart of that of Moses (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10596a.htm) under the Old. A fresco of the cemetery (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03504a.htm) Ad duas lauros, dating from the middle of the third century, appears to have been inspired by the same idea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm): St. Peter is represented, seated on a low chair, with an open roll which he is carefully studying.


Christ told all the apostles that they have the power to bind and loose - were they to borrow keys from St. Peter - those keys in that case were communal keys and not only St. Peter's.

If it was only St. Peter that got the keys - can you please answer this question for once: if it was only St. Peter that had the keys and if those keys mean infallibility - why is not Antioch equal as Rome?



Christ handed it to all of his disciples - there is no mention of supremacy of Peter in the NT - it is obvious that he was not infallible - only 5 verses after the Key verses - Christ is calling Peter a satan -

St. Peter was not infallible,
not only he had the keys.



This is a lie - you are speaking untruth WA - there was so many posts that shown this and now you are saying this.


I posted the canons of the Ecumenical councils (all were accepted by Rome) - you have not answered on any of the posts containing those canons - and now, you say things like these.

Seems to me WA - that were not getting anywhere. You keep posting things and not really reading what is told to you by others.

Post after post you say things that not only make no sense but are showing that you are not reading anything that is posted to you.

Again, read the canons and you will see that "infallible" pope accepted New Rome as such - also did not really had any chance of not doing so - it was imperial decision to move the capitals around - sorry.

So, yes - the decision was based on the WHOLE CHURCH - something West does not know to much about - filioque people.

It is RCC that does things that are not based on the Whole Church.
It is RCC that does not have a clue what word Catholic really means.
It is RCC that went against the Whole of the Church with it's - heterodox - ideas causing schism - it is RCC that has caused so many of them too - exactly due to inovations.
It is RCC that says one things and then her faithful do other (being on one side pope speaking how we are not required to kneel before him - and they people like you WA spend days on forums like these enforcing, teaching, showing - - give us a break.).
It is RCC that changed the Ecumenical creed -going against the canons time and time again...

Wake up.



You ask the question - we answer - you do not read the answer (or dismiss it totally - strike it from memory or whatever else you do) - then you post your "stuff" again - we answer it - you dismiss the answers - .... etc. Merry go round here we go.

You are using these forums to enforce the Latin stuff unto people who really do not care about what popes are teaching.



It is really arduous arguing with you - sorry - really is - but, us Catholics have patience.




Many years.

Why are you so angry over Christ handing keys solely to Peter?

YET...wasnt that Creed filioque MANY YEARS prior to the actual scream of heresy??

WHAT took so long? :scratch:

Red herring?

[Albion]

There are only one set of Keys that stem from David, and Jesus handed them to Peter.


Jesus said nothing about the symbolic keys he was giving to Peter being related to the keys of David.

[Albion]

With all friendliness, WA, this is becoming quite unseemly.

You've started thread after thread with nothing more in mind than to try to make Catholics out of everyone else here, with no respect for their theologies. Despite what unites us, you constantly demand that we accede to your theology concerning the Pope. It's always a slogan followed by "prove I'm wrong," but when evidence, history, and reasoning comes back from the rest of us, it isn't even shown any consideration. That doesn't even qualify as discussion IMO.

So, shall the rest of us leave here? We're not going to become Roman Catholics, you know. Or are we some kind of captive audience to you?i

Could you possibly shelve that topic and take up another that could involve us all in something fresh?

Think about it, please.

[prodromos]

Jesus said nothing about the symbolic keys he was giving to Peter being related to the keys of David.There is also that minor detail of the Isaiah passage and Revelation referring to a single key, the key of David, whereas Matthew refers to keys (plural) to the Kingdom of Heaven, specifically defines them as the power of binding and loosing, then witnesses two chapters later ALL the Apostles receiving that power. Note also that Matt 16:18 is the promise, it is future tense, Matt 18:18 is the fulfillment of the earlier promise and all the Apostles receive them, not just Peter.

[prodromos]

Ok, you say all had the keys, but I dont see any specific notation from Christ on that.
And I havent seen that written about in the first 5-600 years of the Church.If all you read is Papal apologetics sound bites then no, you won't see anything. It is actually well supported though throughout the early church.
Origen A.D. 232 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
St Cyprian A.D. 251 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm), and again. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050626.htm)
St John Chrysostom (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-05.htm#P175_1913) says John the Apostle "holds the keys of heaven"
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.)

These are just a few I happen to have handy from putting Catholic "quote mines" into their contexts. If I had the time and the energy I could find much, much more.
You are correct that in Isaias
the prophecy is Christ... we must understand in Isaias's that the keys are in Christ's hands to begin with...
YET in Matthew He gave those keys to Peter.
Not to all, but to Peter.As evidenced above, you believe contrary to early Church Fathers. All the Apostles received the keys.

Honestly, there is such disgust for the Pope, and the list includes calling him a heretic, a dictator, and a host of other untrue references.

IF you can see him for what he is, you may not hate him as much.Our problem is not with the Pope, but with the Papacy as it exists today. Just like we do not have a problem with Mormons (lovely, sincere people for the most part) but with Mormonism.

Many Eastern brethren follow the Constantinople and claim him to be new Rome...yet Rome never agreed to that.If you are referring to the Canon which placed Constantinople second after Rome, yes Rome did agree to it eventually, after the sack of Constantinople when they had placed a Latin bishop on the patriarchal throne and it was politically to their advantage.

[prodromos]

No where do those keys go to all...
Only the authority to forgive sins or bind them, do all of them have.

The keys themselves were not handed to them all.

They just were not, or Christ would have specified that...
He did not leave these things up to conclusion of men.You disagree with St Augustine. Funny how you agree with him when he defines "original sin" but believe him to be wrong when he says:This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)

He said what He said to ONE man...I give THEE the keys...Now you are removing from scripture. He said "I WILL give thee the keys..."

You say I am wrong, yet history and scriptures back up what I say.History and scripture do not back up what you say, quite the opposite.

[Yeznik]

Yep, keeps them on the table til the next guy gets to pick them up. ;)



AS a_ntv just pointed out, and I pointed out in another thread about the twelve...is that Peter was the leader, but all of them have the power to forgive...
But I am going to add it one step further...
That power derives from the keys Peter holds....
As leader.

Can that be refuted?

Here is Rev again...
9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.


WE do not know exactly what that means...but if I were to take all the prophecies altogether, plus Revelation, then I know a reunification will happen, then this would include the entire Church under this protection...
Because no one says the East are forsaken, but the key holder has a certain role and one that has always been protected by the Holy Spirit.

No where do those keys go to all...
Only the authority to forgive sins or bind them, do all of them have.

The keys themselves were not handed to them all.

They just were not, or Christ would have specified that...
He did not leave these things up to conclusion of men.

He said what He said to ONE man...I give THEE the keys...




You say I am wrong, yet history and scriptures back up what I say.
What if you are wrong?
Ever consider that? :scratch:
If I am wrong, I still am under the Pope who has the keys...
IF you are wrong, then you are not..then what?

:crossrc: Pray for unity.



Link to earliest Church pictorials on Peter with the keys. Not all twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12294b.htm)
Christ giving the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) to St. Peter. Christ is standing on the globe, His right hand raised and extended, while, with His left, He is handing to St. Peter a roll which the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) receives with veiled hands. The author of this scene, which dates from about the middle of the fourth century, evidently regarded the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) as holding an office under the New Law the counterpart of that of Moses (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10596a.htm) under the Old. A fresco of the cemetery (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03504a.htm) Ad duas lauros, dating from the middle of the third century, appears to have been inspired by the same idea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm): St. Peter is represented, seated on a low chair, with an open roll which he is carefully studying.


[color=black]

Why are you so angry over Christ handing keys solely to Peter?

YET...wasnt that Creed filioque MANY YEARS prior to the actual scream of heresy??

WHAT took so long? :scratch:

Red herring?

History backs up what you believe, did you even bother reading my post?

To believe that the Keys were given to one man is absurd. There is historical evidence that points to the contrary. About Peter being a leader, I agree with you whole heartedly, but you are portraying him as "the lovable dictator".

Let me give you an example of your methodology from my perspective.

Since it is historically accepted that the Armenian Church is the First Christian Nation, therefore making the Armenian ordained by God before the beginning of time, and because it was by His Will for Him to choose the First Christian Nation as the Armenians, therefore anyone who is not in communion with the Armenian Church is deemed heretical and in contrary to God's Will.

Now whether you like it or not your "Catholic" history backs me up.
Let me know if this type of attitude doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Secondly, let the "Ecumenism" to the bishops. I really enjoy talking to you but, we both can agree that this type of discussion has gotten us no where for almost 1000 years. The only thing this brings forward is pride. As I have told many people it not what you have in your Church that makes you a Christian, it is what you do with what you have.

Let me share with you a story. During the Armenian Genocide the Turks took not only Armenian to slaughter but Greeks who are EO, and, correct me if I am wrong, Roman Catholic's.

Do you really think a Turk said, kill the Armenian first because he is called a "monophysite" by the Greek? Or kill all the Catholic's last because the are headed by Saint Peter?

Finally, I would like to say, "It is easier for us to destroy ourselves, rather than battle the Enemy".

[Yeznik]

:D :)

Jesus said I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven two times:
- one time to Peter (the pope) alone (Mt 16:19)
- one time to all the 12 (the bishops) toghether (Mt 18:18)

So, for the jurisdictional/pastoral ministies, the CC balances the power of the pope with the power of the collegue of the bishops, each one being ordinary, but each one needing the others: the pope needs to be in communion with the bishops, the bishops needs to be in communion with the pope.

This view units the two main visions of the Church:
- an Escatological Church, single, united and ordinated in the heaven as well in the earth.
- an Eucharistical Church, made one by the Eucharist, celebrated personally or by delegates in many particular churches each one by the own bishop.

Jesus never said: bishops over the pope, or the pope over the bishops (nor the Bizantine Emperator over the EO bishops as it was till 1450): Jesus said that who want to be the first, he shall serve: so the structure of the church is made that any necessary power is balanced by (=shall be in communion with ) an other power.

Interesting, point. It is a pleasure having conversations with you.:thumbsup:

[xristos.anesti]

Yep, keeps them on the table til the next guy gets to pick them up. ;)



AS a_ntv just pointed out, and I pointed out in another thread about the twelve...is that Peter was the leader, but all of them have the power to forgive...
But I am going to add it one step further...
That power derives from the keys Peter holds....
As leader.

Can that be refuted?

Here is Rev again...
9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.


WE do not know exactly what that means...but if I were to take all the prophecies altogether, plus Revelation, then I know a reunification will happen, then this would include the entire Church under this protection...
Because no one says the East are forsaken, but the key holder has a certain role and one that has always been protected by the Holy Spirit.

No where do those keys go to all...
Only the authority to forgive sins or bind them, do all of them have.

The keys themselves were not handed to them all.

They just were not, or Christ would have specified that...
He did not leave these things up to conclusion of men.

He said what He said to ONE man...I give THEE the keys...




You say I am wrong, yet history and scriptures back up what I say.
What if you are wrong?
Ever consider that? :scratch:
If I am wrong, I still am under the Pope who has the keys...
IF you are wrong, then you are not..then what?

:crossrc: Pray for unity.



Link to earliest Church pictorials on Peter with the keys. Not all twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12294b.htm)
Christ giving the law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm) to St. Peter. Christ is standing on the globe, His right hand raised and extended, while, with His left, He is handing to St. Peter a roll which the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) receives with veiled hands. The author of this scene, which dates from about the middle of the fourth century, evidently regarded the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) as holding an office under the New Law the counterpart of that of Moses (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10596a.htm) under the Old. A fresco of the cemetery (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03504a.htm) Ad duas lauros, dating from the middle of the third century, appears to have been inspired by the same idea (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm): St. Peter is represented, seated on a low chair, with an open roll which he is carefully studying.


[color=black]

Why are you so angry over Christ handing keys solely to Peter?

YET...wasnt that Creed filioque MANY YEARS prior to the actual scream of heresy??

WHAT took so long? :scratch:

Red herring?


Many years,

first of all - I am not angry over Christ handing keys solely to St. Peter.


Why would I be angry ?! - Christ handed them to all apostles and not to St. Peter solely - I am happy for the the apostles and all the bishops of the church for having those keys - thanks God for that.

Insisting on certain things on these forums is like the trench warfare of the WW I - the war of attrition.
One of the characteristics of this war (as well of inflexible religious zealotry) is that no movement can be made without causing death, mud and destruction.

We have dug out trenches, and now we are waiting for the next phase of war - which is the coming of big fat rats and them eating our food - I hate rats btw. they ate the last peace of my favourite bacon which I carried with me for good couple of months (it was smoked) - and the rats ate it - oh, I hate rats....

Anyway, the reality of this forum is that - seems so to me anyway - is that we have said what we had to say at this stage - it is summarised by the repetition of same old things - without improvement.

What to do next?! I am actually wondering whether I should stop debating - oh, how nice would that be - but, I like to debate - especially when I know I am right ^_^

Anyways,

The real question is why do we come to this forum?

Is it so that we can argue the point(s)?
Is it to learn more about others?
Is it something else, or all of it?

I am not sure - I think that we can not even start thinking about unity if we are unable to realise that if we do not do concrete steps, in a personal way - towards unity - all our prayers are useless -

only a hypocrite would ask God for unity and then do nothing about it -

only a liar would ask God for unity and then argue the points further without actually working out solutions.

Therefore, me being a hypocrite and a liar - I wish to not be that,
for what is the purpose of being a Christian if I am a hypocrite and a liar - I might as well not be one and have merry days of doing what the body wants to do.

So, I would suggest something.

It is obvious that what we may consider to be the "only ways" towards communion will not be happening any time soon....

Therefore, what are the alternatives?

Either both sides give in or one side forces other side to give in - then smash it, conquer it and rule it.

Well, will either of these two present the real unity - as far as I can see there are no other solutions and of those two - first one is better for the second one is unity through force - anschluss sort of speak...

So, my suggestion will complicate things - the rule should be that in this forum no argument should be presented for or against anything without offering a sort of reasonable solution.

God bless.

[Albion]

There is also that minor detail of the Isaiah passage and Revelation referring to a single key, the key of David, whereas Matthew refers to keys (plural) to the Kingdom of Heaven, specifically defines them as the power of binding and loosing, then witnesses two chapters later ALL the Apostles receiving that power.

Of course, and I also didn't mention that David's authority was governmental, something even WA has not claimed that the early church believed was given to Peter by Christ.

[Mary of Bethany]

YET...wasnt that Creed filioque MANY YEARS prior to the actual scream of heresy??

WHAT took so long? :scratch:

Red herring?


The filioque first appeared on a local basis, in Spain I believe. The Bishops of Rome did not accept it, and one even had the Creed, sans filioque, inscribed in the marble altar of the Cathedral in protest. It was not until the time of Charlemagne, several hundred years later that the Creed was changed by the Bishop of Rome.

That is when it became a problem!

Mary

[a_ntv]

The filioque first appeared on a local basis, in Spain I believe. The Bishops of Rome did not accept it, and one even had the Creed, sans filioque, inscribed in the marble altar of the Cathedral in protest. It was not until the time of Charlemagne, several hundred years later that the Creed was changed by the Bishop of Rome.

That is when it became a problem!

Mary
again....

The filioque was added to combact the Germans who were Arians and used the same Nicean Creed.
The Arians said that Christ was a 'minor God' because He did not partecipated in the Holy Spirit.

So in West Europe we had:
- the Creed without the filioque, used by the Arians
- the creed with the filiowue used by us

Please also remind the the Latin 'procedente' canmeans (differently form the Greek) both 'caming from' and 'caming through' (with the filioque we mean that the Holy Spirit cames from the Father through the Son')

[Albion]

The filioque first appeared on a local basis, in Spain I believe. The Bishops of Rome did not accept it, and one even had the Creed, sans filioque, inscribed in the marble altar of the Cathedral in protest. It was not until the time of Charlemagne, several hundred years later that the Creed was changed by the Bishop of Rome.

That is when it became a problem!

Mary

That's correct.

[WarriorAngel]

Well sister WA -

In the Mt. 18, 18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is our Lord talking to the apostles - all of them.

So, yes in Mt. 16,19 Christ says to St. Peter about keys and binding and loosing, but here (only couple of "moments" later) He speaks to everyone.Why pull Peter out seperately then?

And I also quoted all twelve will be sitting on judgement seats...chairs to judge the world.
Or rather Isreal...the New Church.






With all friendliness, WA, this is becoming quite unseemly.

You've started thread after thread with nothing more in mind than to try to make Catholics out of everyone else here, with no respect for their theologies. Despite what unites us, you constantly demand that we accede to your theology concerning the Pope. It's always a slogan followed by "prove I'm wrong," but when evidence, history, and reasoning comes back from the rest of us, it isn't even shown any consideration. That doesn't even qualify as discussion IMO.

So, shall the rest of us leave here? We're not going to become Roman Catholics, you know. Or are we some kind of captive audience to you?i

Could you possibly shelve that topic and take up another that could involve us all in something fresh?

Think about it, please.

No, I think we need a starting point...as many have said, to unite we must first see where we disagree...
I believe that is the stance held by many.


You disagree with St Augustine. Funny how you agree with him when he defines "original sin" but believe him to be wrong when he says:This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)
Now you are removing from scripture. He said "I WILL give thee the keys..."

History and scripture do not back up what you say, quite the opposite.

Could you give specific quotes so I do not have to go through all of them.
I have a headache and I fear I am getting feverish.
My daughters friend was here and she woke up quite ill, and I am not feeling my best.

Many years,

first of all - I am not angry over Christ handing keys solely to St. Peter.


Why would I be angry ?! - Christ handed them to all apostles and not to St. Peter solely - I am happy for the the apostles and all the bishops of the church for having those keys - thanks God for that.

Insisting on certain things on these forums is like the trench warfare of the WW I - the war of attrition.
One of the characteristics of this war (as well of inflexible religious zealotry) is that no movement can be made without causing death, mud and destruction.

We have dug out trenches, and now we are waiting for the next phase of war - which is the coming of big fat rats and them eating our food - I hate rats btw. they ate the last peace of my favourite bacon which I carried with me for good couple of months (it was smoked) - and the rats ate it - oh, I hate rats....

Anyway, the reality of this forum is that - seems so to me anyway - is that we have said what we had to say at this stage - it is summarised by the repetition of same old things - without improvement.

What to do next?! I am actually wondering whether I should stop debating - oh, how nice would that be - but, I like to debate - especially when I know I am right ^_^

Anyways,

The real question is why do we come to this forum?

Is it so that we can argue the point(s)?
Is it to learn more about others?
Is it something else, or all of it?

I am not sure - I think that we can not even start thinking about unity if we are unable to realise that if we do not do concrete steps, in a personal way - towards unity - all our prayers are useless -

only a hypocrite would ask God for unity and then do nothing about it -

only a liar would ask God for unity and then argue the points further without actually working out solutions.

Therefore, me being a hypocrite and a liar - I wish to not be that,
for what is the purpose of being a Christian if I am a hypocrite and a liar - I might as well not be one and have merry days of doing what the body wants to do.

So, I would suggest something.

It is obvious that what we may consider to be the "only ways" towards communion will not be happening any time soon....

Therefore, what are the alternatives?

Either both sides give in or one side forces other side to give in - then smash it, conquer it and rule it.

Well, will either of these two present the real unity - as far as I can see there are no other solutions and of those two - first one is better for the second one is unity through force - anschluss sort of speak...

So, my suggestion will complicate things - the rule should be that in this forum no argument should be presented for or against anything without offering a sort of reasonable solution.

God bless.

If this is true, then why did the early Church depict Peter holding the scolls [of doctrines] and the keys and taking the place of Moses?
In the catacombs.

again....

The filioque was added to combact the Germans who were Arians and used the same Nicean Creed.
The Arians said that Christ was a 'minor God' because He did not partecipated in the Holy Spirit.

So in West Europe we had:
- the Creed without the filioque, used by the Arians
- the creed with the filiowue used by us

Please also remind the the Latin 'procedente' canmeans (differently form the Greek) both 'caming from' and 'caming through' (with the filioque we mean that the Holy Spirit cames from the Father through the Son')
:thumbsup: John even told us the Son breathed the Spirit on them...

[WarriorAngel]

There is also that minor detail of the Isaiah passage and Revelation referring to a single key, the key of David, whereas Matthew refers to keys (plural) to the Kingdom of Heaven, specifically defines them as the power of binding and loosing, then witnesses two chapters later ALL the Apostles receiving that power. Note also that Matt 16:18 is the promise, it is future tense, Matt 18:18 is the fulfillment of the earlier promise and all the Apostles receive them, not just Peter.

I give thee the keys...
To Peter, even if the others also hold power, Peter is the holder of their keys.

[Albion]

No, I think we need a starting point...as many have said, to unite we must first see where we disagree...
I believe that is the stance held by many.

Let me get this straight. You feel that the purpose of the forum is get everyone into the same church (to "unite")? I must say that I didn't understand it that way when I joined.

But even so, we KNOW where we disagree, so why does it help anything to just keep restating one side's position?

[prodromos]

I give thee the keys...
To Peter, even if the others also hold power, Peter is the holder of their keys."I WILL give thee the keys..."

You misquote our Lord again!

When Christ gave the keys, He gave them to all, not only to Peter.

[Albion]

"I WILL give thee the keys..."

You misquote our Lord again!

Yes, but I can't see that it makes any difference. The issue here is not about Peter but the successors of Peter. If we concede everything to Peter--even that which the early church did not believe and including everything conjectured about with the keys--there still is not one shred of a reason to think that Christ intended to create a Church hierarchy in the shape of a monarchy for all of time to come upon some only of those whom Peter made bishops but just in one of the cities in which Peter was bishop.

IOW, there are a dozen holes in the Papal argument from scripture, and more from history, and even more from studying the ECF's, BUT if none of that worked against this concept, we still have not proved in the least that there is any Papacy or Papal Succession.

[WarriorAngel]

Let me get this straight. You feel that the purpose of the forum is get everyone into the same church (to "unite")? I must say that I didn't understand it that way when I joined.

But even so, we KNOW where we disagree, so why does it help anything to just keep restating one side's position?

SO ....if you are not here about reuniting and similarities that could lead to such, or you are also not here to discuss differences...
Then what exactly should this place be about??:scratch:

"I will give THEE the keys..."

You misquote our Lord again!

When Christ gave the keys, He gave them to all, not only to Peter.

;) You could say it based on perspective...or emphasis of how you read the sentence.


My point is...

Peter is THEE, and only he.

To which went the care of every key. :)

And every key meant for all

Under his shepherd watch to unite, not fall.

I felt poetic.

[zhilan]

Let's say for the sake of argument that Peter has the keys. Now please show how this prove infallibility.

If I have the keys to my house it means I can open the door, not that I can rule the neighborhood.

[prodromos]

;) You could say it based on perspective...or emphasis of how you read the sentence.No, you were leaving out a word. Matt 16:19 is future tense, it is not an action which is completed at that time.

Look at how much effort Catholics put into the correct understanding of "κεχαριτωμένη" when defending Mary yet when it comes to "δώσω σοι" regarding Peter, the grammar and tense is completely ignored.

[xristos.anesti]

Let's say for the sake of argument that Peter has the keys. Now please show how this prove infallibility.

If I have the keys to my house it means I can open the door, not that I can rule the neighborhood.


^_^

I like it a lot -

[Macarius]

The answer could be quite simple: Peter was the first apostle to whom God the Father revealed the Truth concerning His Son. Therefore He was the first to recieve the keys.

The reception of the others simply waiting until their appropriate time. I don't think any of them actually possessed the keys until after Pentecost, however, when the Holy Spirit (the power behind the binding and loosing) descended on them - or perhaps when Christ breathed the Holy Spirit on them at the end of John, since the language of retaining and forgiving sins is closely related to binding and loosing (I think Irenaeus made that connection explicit - perhaps it was Cyprian of Carthage... I'm getting my patristics mixed up).

This explanation fits perfectly will with the idea that all bishops are successors to Peter in the Matt 16 sense if they are institutional successors and proclaimers of the truth (this is pure Cyprianic ecclesiology - I'll find the quote if asked to).

It was Peter's confession that triggered the keys being given to Him - presumably if He ceased to proclaim the truth (ie a few verses later) He ceased to have that authority.

It didn't make Him infallible - only the Truth is infallible.

Hope that clarifies,
Macarius

PS: Warrior - I wanted to thank you for your patient reply to my rant. That did clarify what you were saying, and while I still disagree, I at least understand. Please forgive me if I offended in any way.

[a_ntv]

The answer could be quite simple: Peter was the first apostle to whom God the Father revealed the Truth concerning His Son. Therefore He was the first to recieve the keys.


Well, we dont find the double appointment (to Peter and to the bishops) only in Matt:
- one time to Peter (the pope) alone (Mt 16:19)
- one time to all the 12 (the bishops) toghether (Mt 18:18)

We find this double appointment also in John, after the Ressurection:
- John 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." (to the bishops)
- John 21:16: Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." (to the pope)

Please note that the order is the opposite than in Matthew, so we cannot say the Peter was simply the first to receive the keys.

I underline the very intresting fact that both the evangelists wrote of two different appointments by Jesus: one to Peter, one to the others.
Not only to Peter, nor only to the others.

PS: I took from my bookshelf the only Father commentary to John I have at home, from Theodore of Mopsuetia (who lived in Syria, far away from Rome influence). Here at john 21:6 Take care of my sheeps, that means the men full of wisdom, who obbey to you [Peter] in the ordered grades of the Church, in the apostolacy, in the priesthood and in the pastoral ministry (my English)

[WarriorAngel]

Let's say for the sake of argument that Peter has the keys. Now please show how this prove infallibility.

If I have the keys to my house it means I can open the door, not that I can rule the neighborhood.


Think about this phrase....
Matthew 16:18

If the leader, or big brother...if you like, who is left in charge is mistaken an does not speak theology without error, then error shall be taught..
Then is it allowing evil to prevail by the distortion of truth...?

AND if truth is lost.....then we are following error.

And is that acceptable?

Why does that line I quoted fall into oblivion to mean nothin?
Jesus spoke what He spoke to Peter, concisely, succintly, and without stuttering.

SO we know that;
The Church will never fail in overcoming strange doctrines that lead to heresies [also warned by John]

That the Keys are given to Peter, who must lead the others and confirm and strenthen them.
Also must feed Christ's sheep.

And whatsoever Peter binds first or looses first, shall be done so in Heaven.
Thus givin all the others the same powers by being under his 'guidance'...in his union.

:crossrc:


:hug:
No problem Macarius.

[xristos.anesti]

Obviously, that is the way some Roman Catholics see it -

also, obviously - the rest of us disagree.

Thus, obviously we still have no agreement.

Many years.

[Albion]

Let's say for the sake of argument that Peter has the keys. Now please show how this prove infallibility.

If I have the keys to my house it means I can open the door, not that I can rule the neighborhood.

More or less, that's the issue in a nutshell. And there has been no response that has addressed it.

[Knowledge3]

What it seems, is that WA is forcing a specific interpretation of Christ's command and promise to Peter.

Of course, this is a loaded interpretation which means that one would also have to accept all of the doctrines taught in Catholicism.

Is this correct?

Forgive me as I continue to struggle with the legalistic doctrine of the 'Catholic' Church.

[WarriorAngel]

Originally Posted by zhilan http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37492359#post37492359)
Let's say for the sake of argument that Peter has the keys. Now please show how this prove infallibility.

If I have the keys to my house it means I can open the door, not that I can rule the neighborhood.


I want to address this above statement.

Is the Kingdom of Heaven the same as a house?
Yes, yes it is...BUT it is God's house.

So what the rest of the neighborhood [hindu's, buddhists, pagans et al] do is upon themselves.

Yet still, as the Biggest mansion, and the BIGGEST guy on the block owns it, were to leave that key to you...
YOU would probably have much more to tend to, care for, and carry a burden for than the ones who you 'proportionately' administer tasks to. [Your helpers and friends]

For they oversee small areas of the mansion, whereas you oversee all of it.
And must ensure all tasks are done properly for the Master's preferences and careful discernment.

Does this help to understand the role yet?

Only the key holder can open the doors and shut them...
So as long as the key holder is your friend, he will open the doors for you when you ask.

Unless Zhilan, it is your enemy and they are out to do you harm.
Would you open a door for a thief?
How about a heretic then?

DIdnt the Pope have the authority to excommunicate...thus shutting the door on those who taught strange doctrines?

[WarriorAngel]

What it seems, is that WA is forcing a specific interpretation of Christ's command and promise to Peter.

Of course, this is a loaded interpretation which means that one would also have to accept all of the doctrines taught in Catholicism.

Is this correct?

Forgive me as I continue to struggle with the legalistic doctrine of the 'Catholic' Church.

Interesting choice of words.

The New Rome was not accepted by Rome...
Yet is existed.

SO what is that issue about forcing?

[Albion]

What it seems, is that WA is forcing a specific interpretation of Christ's command and promise to Peter.

Of course, this is a loaded interpretation which means that one would also have to accept all of the doctrines taught in Catholicism.

Is this correct?

Forgive me as I continue to struggle with the legalistic doctrine of the 'Catholic' Church.

That's correct. It's not a give-and-take examination of every suggestion and argument laid before us, but a many-times repeated claim as if it were common knowledge or as though if it is said a certain number of times it will become "proven." She's not the only one who does this.

And then that person can't understand why everyone is not converted to his or her POV since, after all, it's been posted so many times.

[Albion]

Interesting choice of words.

The New Rome was not accepted by Rome...
Yet is existed.

SO what is that issue about forcing?

IMO, the idea there was that you don't discuss the issue of the origins of the Papacy but simply say what we are supposed to believe.

Then how are we supposed to respond to that? If we let it pass, you think we accept as true your speculations. But once we've responded a hundred times to point out the weaknesses in the claims made, we just read the same things again and again on half a dozen different threads as if anything we say just goes in one virtual ear and out the other.

And it IS offensive when one church only has a Pope and everyone is treated to reading how we are wrong not to knuckle under to him. It's as though we deserve no respect at all as fellow members of an Apostolic church.

[Knowledge3]

Interesting choice of words.

The New Rome was not accepted by Rome...
Yet is existed.

SO what is that issue about forcing?

Based on your interpretation of Matthew 16:18, you give others no choice but to either agree or disagree with you.

[WarriorAngel]

Based on your interpretation of Matthew 16:18, you give others no choice but to either agree or disagree with you.

Actually, based on Matthew 16 [all of it] we know JESUS showed us exactly what He was saying.

So if you disagree, it is with Him.

[Albion]

Actually, based on Matthew 16 [all of it] we know JESUS showed us exactly what He was saying.

So if you disagree, it is with Him.

Not at all. We agree with Matthew 16, just not your twist on its meaning.

[Knowledge3]

Actually, based on Matthew 16 [all of it] we know JESUS showed us exactly what He was saying.

So if you disagree, it is with Him.


So. . .If I disagree with you, it means that I disagree with Jesus? The most powerful person in the universe?

. . .

[david01]

My goodness. These keys seem to get passed around a lot. First they are in Constantinople (and other places) then in Rome (and other places) and then in Canterbury (and other places) and in Worms (and other places). Nowadays we seem to have one denomination claiming they have the True Keys (hidden somewhere in the Vatican) and another claiming there are matching sets in Moscow, Antioch, Istanbul, etc. and another denomination passing them around to gay bishops and yet other denominations claiming that their pastors or priests have them (or at least valid copies of them). Seems to me to be a big fuss over something that, as has been pointed out, never existed except in the person and work of Jesus Christ.