Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[josie_L]

Cool story josie, except for the fact that the Fathers I quoted clearly state that the other apostles have the keys given directly to them by Christ.

No, not a story, but Scripture, in fact, the Church did indeed receive the keys but that’s because the “rock” upon which the Church would be built received the keys from Christ Himself, however, it is Peter alone who is specifically entrusted with the keys, who was singled out so as to connote his position within the Church as chief shepherd/steward, because as you well know keys represent authority in the Bible. And St. Matthew writing to a Jewish audience is letting his audience know that Peter is second in command to the king, just like Eliakim, the prime minister/chief steward, was in the Davidic kingdom.

I do not deny the fathers but Scripture is very clear as to who received the keys.

They don’t state your position: that Christ gave the keys only to Peter and then the others have the keys through Peter. The Patristic position is that they all have the keys directly from Christ. Checkmate. Game over

.

Because they TOO belong to the Church wherein Christ specifically gave Peter the keys, but they would not have had that authority/keys were it not for the fact that they were in communion with the successor of Peter, because he is the “rock” upon which the Church would be built.

Here is an excerpt from the ecumenical Council of Ephesus stating that, yes, Peter is the rock, and yes, he did receive the keys from Christ:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

And yes, I do take my own opinions seriously. I would hope everyone does, because if they can’t take themselves seriously, then why should anyone else take them seriously? This shouldn’t have anything to do with credentials.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, as I think that if you’re going to cite yourself (so to speak) don’t expect others to have as much faith in your interpretation as you do.

Being part of the foundation and being THE ROCK are two very different things in Catholic dogma.

In a sense, yes, and in a sense, no, i.e., THE ROCK is in reference to Peter, i.e., he is the only one called as such by Christ, however, rock and foundation are not mutually exclusive terms, just look at the above quote from Ephesus that utilizes foundation instead of rock in reference to Peter. Moreover, the Church would never deny that the apostles were also living stones/rocks, as such part of the foundation of the Church, as stated in Ephesians.

Exactly, which doesn’t include the keys. The other apostolic authorities are different in nature from the pope’s, according to Catholic dogma. Sure, they both have authority, but it is different.

Yes, Peter’s authority is different in nature from the other apostles (and that should be clear from Scripture and Tradition), however, when Peter was specifically given the keys from Christ, being thus made the “keybearer”, so too did the Church receive them.

 

[Abu]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
**“I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism….a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine…” *[Pope St John Paul II Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum in the CCC, p 5].
**
553. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt 16:19]. The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15-17; cf. 10:11]. The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. **Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles [cf. Matt 18:18] and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
**
881. The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock [Cf. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17]. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head” [LG 22; cf. Mt 18:18; Jn 20:21-23]. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Peter and the Papacy [Catholic Answers]
Promises to Peter
catholic.com/tracts/peter-and-the-papacy
Then two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

******Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). **In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness.
[My emphases].

 

[prodromos]

Here is an excerpt from the ecumenical Council of Ephesus stating that, yes, Peter is the rock, and yes, he did receive the keys from Christ.

What was the response of the other fathers at the council to the statement made by Philip the presbyter?

 

[josie_L]

What was the response of the other fathers at the council to the statement made by Philip the presbyter?

Nothing that contradicts what he said, here read the whole transcript:

newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

Right after Philip the presbyter spoke, the other legates and then St. Cyril of Alexandria spoke:

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See said: Nestorius has brought us great sorrow…And since of his own accord he has made himself an alien and an exile from us, we following the sanctions handed down from the beginning by the holy Apostles, and by the Catholic Church (for they taught what they had received from our Lord Jesus Christ), also following the types (τύποις) of Cœlestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See, who has condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy Synod [we give this as our conclusion]: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all episcopal dignity, and is an alien from the whole Church and from the communion of all its priests.

Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Most clearly from the reading, etc…Moreover I also, by my authority as legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor (ἐκβιβαστὴς) of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he was accused, has been removed from the grade of Episcopal honour, and moreover from the communion of all orthodox priests.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Cœlestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote cast against Nestorius the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shown to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said: According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.

The Holy Synod said: Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shown to them.

[The three then signed.]

 

[Rohzek]

So wait, Josie, having the keys through Peter is somehow the same as having the keys directly from Christ with no intermediary? But one doesn’t have the keys if they aren’t with Peter’s successor in Rome? Yet they still had the keys directly from Christ with no intermediary? That’s funny. I’m done here. People can see clearly who has the better arguments: It’s either me or Abu, who truly understands the Catholic position.

 

[josie_L]

So wait, Josie, having the keys through Peter is somehow the same as having the keys directly from Christ with no intermediary? But one doesn’t have the keys if they aren’t with Peter’s successor in Rome? Yet they still had the keys directly from Christ with no intermediary? That’s funny. I’m done here. People can see clearly who has the better arguments: It’s either me or Abu, who truly understands the Catholic position.

Fine, then, read what another Catholic poster espoused about the keys and look carefully at the source he uses:

The Catholic Church teaches that the Church, as a whole, holds the keys of authority in general way while the Roman Pontiff, being the chief representative for the Church on earth, holds the keys of Saint Peter in a particular way that is unique only to him. The Church as a whole holds the keys insofar as the bishops are in union with the Pope.

Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215

Here is a direct quote from Lateran IV -

“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

Your belief that you truly understand what the Catholic Church teaches is WRONG!!!

 

[josie_L]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
**“I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism….a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine…” **[Pope St John Paul II Apostolic Constitution *Fidei Depositum

in the CCC, p 5].
**
553.** Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt 16:19]. The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15-17; cf. 10:11]. The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. **Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles [cf. Matt 18:18] and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
**

The keyword being “specifically”, i.e., he is the only one, as per Scripture, who was specifically entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, but that does not mean that the other apostles did not receive the keys too, as they are in communion with Peter, who Christ said he would build his Church upon.

This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness.
[My emphases].

Correct!!

 

[josie_L]

And by the way, there is no distinction between the power of the keys and the keys, hence, why I had quoted the New Advent article concerning the power of the keys and then the catechism:

II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations."526 The apostles and their successors carry out this “ministry of reconciliation,” not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:527

**[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven **so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.528

And here is another poster supporting my view:

Every Father of the Church equated the keys with the power of the keys. Even the scholastics did so. I suggest reading the link sister Josie gave earlier to the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Keys. I’m afraid your interpretation is a novelty. You don’t need to do that to defend the papacy. The Fathers are enough.

 

[Rohzek]

Fine, then, read what another Catholic poster espoused about the keys and look carefully at the source he uses:

Here is a direct quote from Lateran IV -

Your belief that you truly understand what the Catholic Church teaches is WRONG!!!

No, not really. All that you have proven is that the Catholic position has changed over 800 years:

Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.”, confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ’s vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apocalypse 3:7: “He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth.” In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys.

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

You have to also realize that the Fourth Lateran Council was before the later Scholastic period. Even Thomas Aquinas adopts the Patristic position, which was later developed and partially rejected.

(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, “Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno” (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., “Sent.”, IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution.

The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter, while, according to this interpretation, the potestas clavium is common to all priests.

(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

 

[josie_L]

Again, it is Catholic understanding that the Bishop of Rome alone holds the power of the keys. No one else has it according to Catholic dogma. It isn’t a matter of whether you’re an ultramontane or not. It’s a fundamental matter of Catholic dogma. And all that you have done is bent definitions over backwards, so you can avoid directly engaging the challenging arguments that I’ve put forward, whereby I problematize Catholic claims. Lumen Gentium:

Didn’t seem to notice this before, but you’ve contradicted yourself, first you said that it is Catholic dogma that only the Bishop of Rome ALONE HOLDS THE POWER OF THE KEYS, then you said this, when I quoted the New Advent quote confirming that the power of the keys are held by all the apostles as well:

Exactly, which doesn’t include the keys. The other apostolic authorities are different in nature from the pope’s, according to Catholic dogma. Sure, they both have authority, but it is different.

But that’s not what you originally said, is it??? So nO, I’m not the one who’s engaging in any subterfuge and/or avoiding directly engaging in the challenges against the erroneous claims you’ve made against MY church/faith.

 

[josie_L]

No, not really. All that you have proven is that the Catholic position has changed over 800 years:

You have to also realize that the Fourth Lateran Council was before the later Scholastic period. Even Thomas Aquinas adopts the Patristic position, which was later developed and partially rejected.

Sorry, but I quoted from a Catholic ecumenical council, that, therefore takes precedence!!!

 

[josie_L]

No, not really. All that you have proven is that the Catholic position has changed over 800 years:

Yes, I’ll take your word for it. Not.

 

[Rohzek]

Didn’t seem to notice this before, but you’ve contradicted yourself, first you said that it is Catholic dogma that only the Bishop of Rome ALONE HOLDS THE POWER OF THE KEYS, then you said this, when I quoted the New Advent quote confirming that the power of the keys are held by all the apostles as well:

But that’s not what you originally said, is it??? So nO, I’m not the one who’s engaging in any subterfuge and/or avoiding directly engaging in the challenges against the erroneous claims you’ve made against MY church/faith.

Yes, it is exactly what I originally said. I’ve always held that the so-called power of the pope rested with his keys, which are distinct from binding and loosing. You made the claim that the other apostlates are divinely instituted. I agreed with that assessment, but issued the caveat that it has nothing to do with the keys. That’s a key difference, and any measure of reading comprehension would see that.

 

[Rohzek]

Sorry, but I quoted from a Catholic ecumenical council, that, therefore takes precedence!!!

Except a so-called ecumenical council has nothing to do with whether or not a doctrine changed. It is common Catholic teaching today that the keys are significant and unique to Peter. And that only Peter has them.

But let’s review the historical record. The Council of Trent issues a very revealing statement, which is virtually the same as Lateran IV:

But, as regards the minister of this sacrament, the holy Synod declares all these doctrines to be false, and utterly alien from the truth of the Gospel, which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any others soever besides bishops and priests; imagining, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, that those words of our Lord, Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven, and, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven the m, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained,were in such wise addressed to all the faithful of Christ indifferently and indiscriminately, as that every one has the power of forgiving sins,-public sins to wit by rebuke, provided he that is rebuked shall acquiesce, and secret sins by a voluntary confession made to any individual whatsoever.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

Okay, so let us say then, as this says, that the keys and powers are the same. On what basis then is Peter superior to the other apostles? If the keys reside with only the bishops and the priests, this then would contradict St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Paschius Radbertus, and St. Hrabanus Maurus. Are you ready to disavow these radical positions?

From Francisco Suárez:

And it is difficult to reconcile this position with the Petrine arguments that are made about the keys:

Lastly it is false that Christ did not promise a Peter who was to direct and teach others; for he not only promised but even gave, for by promising him the keys he promised him both the key of governance and the key of wisdom.

Next he himself seems to approve the exposition of those who say that both places, namely “I will give unto thee the keys” and “feed my sheep,” were said indeed to Peter but pertained to all the apostles, whose persons Peter was himself bearing. Which he confirms hence, that elsewhere the power of the keys was conceded in the plural number, Matthew 18.18: “Whatsoever ye (plural) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye (plural) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” From which 163 words he wishes to collect that the power of the keys was not less conferred on the other apostles than on Peter and that he therefore did not have the primacy. Nay, many are they among the Protestants who not only on the apostles but on the whole Church wish the power of the keys to have been conferred, because in the place cited from Matthew Christ had said, 18.17: “Tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican;” and immediately, as if giving the reason, he subjoins: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Here then is a sign that Christ spoke to the apostles or disciples insofar as they were representing the Church or contained it virtually. 6. But because this objection involves both testimonies and there is not altogether the same reason in each of them, they must be spoken about in turn. And in the first place, about the words “feed my sheep,” I do not find among the ancient Fathers dissenting opinions or expositions, neither about the person to whom individually “feed” is said, nor about the signification of the verb ‘feed’, nor about the persons comprehended under the name of sheep and lambs. For although in expounding these two last terms there be some variety, whether the two terms ‘lambs’ and ‘sheep’ signify the same or diverse persons, yet in truth there is no discrepancy that might have importance for the present cause. For all Catholics agree that the whole flock of Christ and all the sheep were committed to Peter, whether under the individual terms of ‘lambs’ and ‘sheep’ they were all signified or whether under both at the same time because of diverse properties. And hence it necessarily follows that the words pertained to Peter alone, and that they were said to him not as bearing the person of others but most properly and specifically because of the individual office committed to him.

aristotelophile.com/Books/Translations/Suarez%20Defense%203.pdf

Herein lies the rub, if the powers and the keys are both given to the rest of the apostles, then on what basis is there an individual office pertaining specifically to Peter? The only justification given for this is Christ’s command, “Feed my sheep.” But this is a rather weak argument alone. If the keys and powers are common to all of the apostles then what else is there? And in what way is bearing the keys different from having the keys, as you claim? Where is the distinction in the theological tracts you cite? Because thus far to me, I just see an epic case of contradiction spanning centuries. Bearing the keys means holding/having the keys, as far as I can tell. The canons of Lateran IV and Trent seem to contradict Satis Cognitum and Lumen Gentium here:

This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.** For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church**,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)

 

[Abu]

**The final teaching is found in Ecumenical Council Vatican II
This is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
CHAPTER III
22.
“But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;*(157) It is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation.” [My red and bold].
Notes:
156 Cf. Mt. 16.18-19.
157 Cf. Jn. 21:15 ff.
158 Mt. 16:19.
159 Mt. 18:18, 28:16-20.
Supplementary Notes [Chap III].
(28) Cfr. Conc. Vat. 1, Schema Const. dogm. 11, de Ecclesia Christi, c. 4: Mansi S3, 310. Cfr. Relatio Kleutgen de Schemate reformato: Mansi S3, 321 B - 322 B et declaratio Zinelli: Mansi 52 1110 A. Vide etiam S. Leonem M. Scrm. 4, 3: PL 54, 151 A.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, it is exactly what I originally said. I’ve always held that the so-called power of the pope rested with his keys, which are distinct from binding and loosing. You made the claim that the other apostlates are divinely instituted. I agreed with that assessment, but issued the caveat that it has nothing to do with the keys. That’s a key difference, and any measure of reading comprehension would see that.

Oh please, that is not what you originally said, and anyone with an iota of reading comprehension skills can see through that malarkey. YOU said it was Catholic dogma that the POPE ALONE had the power of the keys and I quoted the catechism, a New Advent article on the power of the keys and an ecumenical council to PROVE to you that that’s not true. All the bishops in the Catholic Church have the keys/power of the keys:

Again, it is Catholic understanding that the Bishop of Rome alone holds the power of the keys. No one else has it according to Catholic dogma. It isn’t a matter of whether you’re an ultramontane or not. It’s a fundamental matter of Catholic dogma. And all that you have done is bent definitions over backwards, so you can avoid directly engaging the challenging arguments that I’ve put forward, whereby I problematize Catholic claims. Lumen Gentium:

By saying that “no one else has it according to Catholic dogma” is not only erroneous but nonsensical, i.e., how can the bishop of Rome alone hold authority (for that is what the keys/power of the keys connote) within the Church (you are rendering all other bishops obsolete)??

THIS IS NOT THE CATHOLIC POSITION. Moreover, you cited this earlier:

The Church is typified not only as an edifice but as a Kingdom, and every one knows that the keys constitute the usual sign of governing authority. Wherefore when Christ promised to give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he promised to give him power and authority over the Church…

Rightly, therefore, has Leo X. laid down in the 5th council of Lateran “that the Roman Pontiff alone, as having authority over all Councils, has full jurisdiction and power to summon, to transfer, to dissolve Councils, as is clear, not only from the testimony of Holy Writ, from the teaching of the Fathers and of the Roman Pontiffs, and from the decrees of the sacred canons, but from the teaching of the very Councils themselves.”** Indeed, Holy Writ attests that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone, and that the power of binding and loosening was granted to the Apostles and to Peter; but there is nothing to show that the Apostles received supreme power without Peter, and against Peter.** Such power they certainly did not receive from Jesus Christ. Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age (Sess. iv., cap. 3).

w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xii…-cognitum.html

What here contradicts what I stated earlier, i.e., Holy Writ does attest that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were specifically entrusted to Peter (no one else is mentioned), and that this connoted that he would be the prime minister/chief steward in the Kingdom/Church, as such his authority is superior to that of the other apostles, who in communion with the “rock upon which the Church would be built” also received the keys/power of the keys.

What the Catholic Church does not state is that the keys/power of the keys are PETER’s ALONE, in that only HE HAS AUTHORITY, the power to teach, legislate. . . . etc.

 

[josie_L]

Except a so-called ecumenical council has nothing to do with whether or not a doctrine changed. It is common Catholic teaching today that the keys are significant and unique to Peter. And that only Peter has them.

A so-called ecumenical council, what?? This “so-called” ecumenical council affirms what I’ve been saying all along, that the apostles/bishops also received the keys.

Furthermore, the keys are significant and unique to Peter in the sense that he was set apart and singled out by Jesus to receive the keys, that in itself bespeaks his role/position in the Church. And I’ve already stated that.

Okay, so let us say then, as this says, that the keys and powers are the same. On what basis then is Peter superior to the other apostles? If the keys reside with only the bishops and the priests, this then would contradict St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Paschius Radbertus, and St. Hrabanus Maurus. Are you ready to disavow these radical positions?

Because in Holy Writ Jesus specifically entrusted Peter with the keys, thereby signifying to his Jewish audience, that the Son of David, the King of the Jews is bestowing upon Peter the primacy, one which entailed authority (the chief steward was second in command to the King). As such, the keys entailed to Peter were and are more fully accessible to him than the keys/power of the keys entailed to the other apostles. And as I’ve already mentioned Christ gave the keys to Peter who then communicated them to the Church.

Here is an excerpt from the book, “The Keys of The Kingdom” from [Father] Stanley Jaki:

“Unanimous was the voice of the three Cappadocians. In vindicating the power of bishops to impose penitential discipline. St. Gregory of Nyssa warned the recalcitrant: ‘"Consider that if absolved you will be released, and if bound you will be tied with invisible fetters, because through Peter Christ conferred [on his Church] the keys of heavenly honours."’ By tying Peter’s obtaining the keys to his becoming a rock not to be broken.’” St. Gregory Nazienzen clearly saw the keys too as having the same endurance. St. Basil tried to stir the fear of God in some hardened souls precisely with a pointed reference to Peter’s keys, “'What a hardened heart would not be induced to fear God’s judgment as Peter, who was preferred before all the disciples, who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest, to whom were entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven, also has to hear, If I do not wash you, you will have no part in me.”’ In discussing the case of Ananais as an example of bad faith, that is, of heretical faith, St. Ephiphanius, bishop of Constantia of Cyprus, emphasized submission to Peter as the source of correct faith. “‘In every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven, who looses and binds in heaven. For in him are found all the subtle matters in faith.’” (pg 85-86)

Herein lies the rub, if the powers and the keys are both given to the rest of the apostles, then on what basis is there an individual office pertaining specifically to Peter? The only justification given for this is Christ’s command, “Feed my sheep.” But this is a rather weak argument alone. If the keys and powers are common to all of the apostles then what else is there? And in what way is bearing the keys different from having the keys, as you claim? Where is the distinction in the theological tracts you cite? Because thus far to me, I just see an epic case of contradiction spanning centuries. Bearing the keys means holding/having the keys, as far as I can tell. The canons of Lateran IV and Trent seem to contradict Satis Cognitum and Lumen Gentium here:

Peter held the primacy based on the fact that he was called the “rock” and told that upon this “rock” Christ’s Church would be built, on the fact that he was singled out before the others to receive the keys which were then communicated to the other apostles, who were in communion with him, and then lastly, because of the statement made by Christ to Peter at the end of John “to feed my sheep”. But if you look at the whole of the N.T. you will see in many ways that Peter is pre-eminent (and I’ve already listed those earlier). Moreover, there is no contradiction, the apostles/bishops do indeed have the keys has stated in Trent and Lateran IV (although you very well know that the Pope held a primacy of authority even then), but what was written in Lumen Gentium is in reference to Scripture, i.e., he was the only one who was called “rock” and the only one who was specifically given the keys from our LORD, i.e., no where else do we see another apostle given this honour/privilege. And these specific references to Scripture are why WE believe that Peter held the primacy, and so when speaking of Church governance, it would be necessary for Lumen Gentium to mention the unique manner in which Christ bestowed the primacy upon Peter and his successors.