Did Jesus also give the "keys" to the other apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Senyorico
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Senyorico

Guest
This was asked before in this forum but I did not find any good answers.
In Mt. 16:18, Christ gave the keys to Peter and he can “bind and loose”, the binding and loosing comes from the keys since that’s what keys does. The same thing goes with Is. 22, wherein it seems the binding and loosing comes from the keys. Why did the Church differentiate the “keys” and “binding and loosing”?

If the binding and loosing comes from the keys then the other apostles also have the keys since they also have the power to bind and loose.

I do hope for your kind responses! God bless!
 
Last edited:
I’m not informed enough to comment on the keys in particular, but it is important that the keys were given to Peter first, and then the powers of binding and loosing to the other bishops. They keys were also a symbol of office, the chief minister to the king. Though the king would have other ministers too, of course.
 
All the Apostles and Bishops have them. The petrine ministry is a unique role though, which includes the grace to teach infallibly (or with maximum epistemic certainty), to rule on all matters in the Church, and the charism of an unbreaking faith. The other bishops only have this as a body, or collective, and the Pope has it as an individual. The body still can’t judge or rule over the head (Pope) though. The other bishops can teach infallibly in councils (with the Popes approval), can rule in their diocese and in councils, and collectively can not fall from faith (universal ordinary is infallible).

Matthew 18:18 shows Christ giving it to the rest of them. But above are the differences with it, although it is basically the same power, one person has it in himself and the others have it together and under the one person. I hope this makes sense.

The single person/whole body distinction is why Christ gave it to Peter in a grand show by himself, and the others later together as a whole. The distinction in infallible faith is also shown in Luke 22:31-32. One for the person, one for the brothers.
 
Last edited:
Senyorico said:
This was asked before in this forum but I did not find any good answers.
In Mt. 16:18, Christ gave the keys to Peter and he can “bind and loose”, the binding and loosing comes from the keys since that’s what keys does. The same thing goes with Is. 22, wherein it seems the binding and loosing comes from the keys. Why did the Church differentiate the “keys” and “binding and loosing”?

If the binding and loosing comes from the keys then the other apostles also have the keys since they also have the power to bind and loose.

I do hope for your kind responses! God bless!
Click to expand...
In Matt 18:18 Jesus was speaking to the Apostles:

“Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
 
CCC 553:
The ‘Power of the Keys’ designates authority to govern the House of God which is the Church. The power to bind and loose connotes the authority to absolve sins. The power to bind and loose connotes the authority to pronounce doctrinal judgments. The power to bind and loose connotes the authority to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.
 
The keys are given to Peter alone - not the other apostles.

In Matthew 16:
*Notice the context: Jesus is establishing His Church and establishing it on Peter, the Rock (Petrine office);
*notice it is Jesus who will be doing the “building” (“and on this rock I will build My Church”) - He will be doing it in and through the one holding the Petrine/Papal office. It is by means of this power of the keys, held only by one living head of His Church that He will ensure it’s His truth that will be proclaimed, ensure unity in doctrine – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” Eph 4:5
*notice the keys are for the “kingdom” – the whole Church here on earth. The Pope alone can “bind or loose” for the whole/universal Catholic Church.

In Matthew 18:
The context here is totally different. Jesus is telling the apostles how to handle problems that arise in individual church congregations. It deals with authority in a limited area, not the whole universal Church.
 
Last edited:
However, I’ve seen in other Catholic Literature that the “keys” and “binding and loosing” are different gifts given unto Peter. Thus, only Peter was given the keys but I find it hard to prove given my statements above.
 
Is this the official teaching of the Church? P1 The “keys of the kingdom” is given unto Peter to bind and loose. P2 The apostles were instructed to bind and loose. Conclusion: Therefore, the keys were also given to the apostles. If the keys were also given to the apostles then the doctrine of the Church that the keys were given to Peter alone must be false.
 
They did not demonstrate the difference of “binding and loosing” and the “keys”.
 
Is this key/bind distinction based in doctrines, tradition, and scripture, or is it just popular ideas? If it is just a popular idea then it should be ignored.
 
Last edited:
finally a thread to help understand Peter’s key, binding and losing… too bad I have to to go to work or I’d stick around. Hopefully it wont get to long for me to participate. Good Night.
 
Senyorico said:
Is this the official teaching of the Church? P1 The “keys of the kingdom” is given unto Peter to bind and loose. P2 The apostles were instructed to bind and loose. Conclusion: Therefore, the keys were also given to the apostles. If the keys were also given to the apostles then the doctrine of the Church that the keys were given to Peter alone must be false.
Click to expand...
Church doctrine is not wrong. Your conclusion is wrong.
The keys were given to Peter alone and the authority to bind and loose, but an authority was given to the apostles to bind and loose. That does not mean the keys were given to the apostles.
 
To Simon Peter the keys were given. The others received powers, but not as much as him.
 
The first premise must be false for the conclusion to be incorrect and that is where I’m getting confused at. How do we demonstrate that the keys are not for binding and loosing?
 
Senyorico said:
The first premise must be false for the conclusion to be incorrect and that is where I’m getting confused at. How do we demonstrate that the keys are not for binding and loosing?
Click to expand...
The keys given to Peter included the authority to loose and bind but the keys signified Peter’s supremacy over the Church. The apostles were given the authority to loose and bind.
 
Senyorico said:
This was asked before in this forum but I did not find any good answers.
In Mt. 16:18, Christ gave the keys to Peter and he can “bind and loose”, the binding and loosing comes from the keys since that’s what keys does. The same thing goes with Is. 22, wherein it seems the binding and loosing comes from the keys. Why did the Church differentiate the “keys” and “binding and loosing”?

If the binding and loosing comes from the keys then the other apostles also have the keys since they also have the power to bind and loose.

I do hope for your kind responses! God bless!
Click to expand...
Greetings!

The power of the keys was given to the others as well. We read about this in the 18th chapter of Matthew;
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

While Peter clearly held a preeminent leadership role in the proto-church, it was also clearly not a position that the apostles felt they had to remain in close contact with, as exampled by Thomas the Apostle walking to India and out of western Christian history.

This is also echoed in the canons of Nicaea where the see of Alexandria is described as having similar power over its jurisdiction as Rome had over its own.

Roman supremacy (as opposed to primacy) seems to have developed as militant Islam silenced the other major Christian sees of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch.

Moreover, it’s important to note that virtually the entire New Testament was neither written by Peter nor written citing an obvious (name removed by moderator)rimatur from him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top