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

[Gorgias]

Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, John 20:22-23 which has already been quoted.

These aren’t “linked”, however, as has been pointed out to you.

And again, as demonstrated already, the Church fathers agree with me on this point.

And, as well, we’ve demonstrated that you’re misreading and misconstruing the ECFs on this matter.

I read somewhere that Peter was the first person named “Peter” on earth.

I could understand “first in the Bible”, but… what evidence is there that it was never used as a name, anywhere ??

 

[anon91549587]

Hey Gorgias,

i recognize your name. Are you well versed with Hebrew with Greek? i enjoy reading your posts.

Here is the quote from Scott Hahn, i might be reading it wrongly.

"You wouldn’t name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon. "

 

[Gorgias]

I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon. "

OK. Fair enough! So, it’s not “it was never used”, but “we don’t have any archeological evidence that it was ever used.”

 

[Senyorico]

Hi Gorgias and JGD, and to the rest as well! I was honestly skeptical about this Church doctrine but I’m familiar with the basic response of Catholics but both of you made really sound and convincing arguments! I will always be grateful for your response, it was truly helpful!

 

[Hodos]

These aren’t “linked”, however, as has been pointed out to you.

Actually they are. You are confusing your disagreement with even what your own Church Fathers explain with your own interpretation because it is at odds with your apologetic stance. Christ mentions the ability to loose or bind in the same sentence as he charges the Church with the keys, and then two chapters later discusses the power to loose or bind in the context of forgiving or retaining sins.

And, as well, we’ve demonstrated that you’re misreading and misconstruing the ECFs on this matter.

No, actually, all I said is that the Church fathers agree that the office of the keys has to do with the ability to forgive and retain sins, and that this ability was first discussed in Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession of faith, and Jesus later applied to the rest of the disciples. And the quotes provided above support this.

 

[whatistrue]

actually, all I said is that the Church fathers agree that the office of the keys has to do with the ability to forgive and retain sins

Which was rather handily disputed.

And the quotes provided above support this.

No, they really don’t. Which is the entire point.

 

[White_Tree]

Dante, in his mystical treatise on Purgatory, suggests the keys were given to Peter alone:

Then with his sword he traced upon my brow the scars of seven P’s. “Once entered here, be sure you cleanse away these wounds,” he said.

Ashes, or earth when it is dug up dry - this was the colour of the robes he wore; he reached beneath them and drew out two keys.

One key was silver and the other gold; first he applied the white one, then the yellow–with that the gate responded to my wish.

“Whenever either one of these two keys fails to turn properly inside the lock,” the angel said, “the road ahead stays closed. One is more precious, but the other needs wisdom and skill before it will unlock, for it is that one which unties the knot. I hold these keys from Peter, who advised: ‘Admit too many, rather than too few, if they but cast themselves before your feet.’”

Then, pushing back the portal’s holy door, “Enter,” he said to us, “but first be warned: to look back means to go back out again." – The Divine Comedy, Purgatory, IX

 

[JGD]

So thankful it helped.

 

[Montrose]

Dante, in his mystical treatise on Purgatory, suggests the keys were given to Peter alone:

Sorry but nobody should use Dante to talk about what the Church teaches or not. He was a fiction writer and did not speak for the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

You are confusing your disagreement with even what your own Church Fathers explain with your own interpretation because it is at odds with your apologetic stance.

That’s amusing, since this is exactly the point that’s been made to you!

Christ mentions the ability to loose or bind in the same sentence as he charges the Church with the keys

Two thoughts:

• Not the same sentence. Distinct sentences, although in English, it gets put together with semicolons or commas.
• Besides, what kind of hermeneutic is that? “If two thoughts appear in subsequent clauses, then they’re linked thematically”??? You’re just making that up, I’m afraid. Look back just a few verses, to Mt 16:14. Are the apostles asserting that there’s “linkage” between the notions that some think Jesus is Elijah, and others think He’s John the Baptist back from the dead? Of course not!

I said is that the Church fathers agree that the office of the keys has to do with the ability to forgive and retain sins

No. They’re shared in the person of Peter.

this ability was first discussed in Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession of faith, and Jesus later applied to the rest of the disciples. And the quotes provided above support this.

No, they don’t. They point to Peter, as the locus of authority in the Church. (Except for Tertullian who, as has been pointed out, had already left the Church and was just taking potshots at it.)

 

[Hodos]

Besides, what kind of hermeneutic is that? “If two thoughts appear in subsequent clauses, then they’re linked thematically”??? You’re just making that up, I’m afraid. Look back just a few verses, to Mt 16:14. Are the apostles asserting that there’s “linkage” between the notions that some think Jesus is Elijah, and others think He’s John the Baptist back from the dead? Of course not!

Yes, we call this repetitive coupling, frequently used in the bible as demonstrated in the prophets, psalms, proverbs etc. A clause will state a premise, followed by a statement that expands and clarifies on the original thought. Which is precisely what we see here, and why they are connected by a semicolon or comma. And again, which the early fathers agree with me upon, that the power of the keys is the power to forgive and retain sin.

No, they don’t. They point to Peter , as the locus of authority in the Church. (Except for Tertullian who, as has been pointed out, had already left the Church and was just taking potshots at it.)

Again, Tertullian doesn’t stand alone and both Cyprian and Augustine both agree that the ability to forgive and retain sins was first invoked when addressing Peter but in subsequent scripture is invoked when addressing the apostles as a group, and in the case of Matthew 18 also includes other believers who are present when Jesus is speaking.

 

[bob4]

If you are seeking a fuller treatment of this topic I suggest the following: Jesus, Peter & the Keys; Butler, Dahlgren, Hess; Queenship Publishing Co; CA 1996.

 

[bob4]

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.

The distinction is in the Gospel itself. Jesus gave the stewardship of the keys exclusively to Peter. This is demonstrated in Mt 16:19 by the use of “you” (Gr. soi) in the singular form through the entire passage including the referencing of the binding an loosing. The singular form of these verbs is used as well.
“In Mt 18:18, the plural of you is used when Jesus is addressing all of the apostles, but in Mt 16:19 he is only addressing Peter. Peter is the only one of the apostles who is given the keys of the Kingdom. These keys are directly related to the power of binding and loosing of which Peter is given a singular prerogative not given to any other apostle.” Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for Infallibility,” letter to authors, , November 1993, 5.

 

[Hume]

No. They’re shared in the person of Peter.

That something that will be difficult to find outside Catholic circles, as Christ’s gift of the power of the keys to the remaining apostles two chapters later certainly didn’t seem to mention it.

It would be extraordinarily difficult to argue that Peter didn’t hold a special place of authority in the proto-church. However, the western view of the papacy (supremacy) is also difficult to argue before the explosion of Islam in the 7th century. Thomas didn’t seem to feel the need to stay in touch with Rome, none of the NT writers cite a Petrine imprimatur. Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople provide ample examples in their history that “Whatever Peter says, goes” wasn’t a fixed rule.

The papacy itself seems to have conceded to much of the reality by sending legates to the seven councils - which were called by the emperor, not his holiness. If Petrine supremacy was the reality of the pre-Islam church, one would expect to see “Peter” buck the Eastern Roman emperors on a clear over-reach like German electors of the Holy Roman Empire would buck the state intrigues of a much more powerful papacy of the 15th/16th centuries.

In short, I think it’s something you have to be Catholic in order to genuinely believe.

 

[Montrose]

the power of the keys is the power to forgive and retain sin.

Giving Peter the keys is giving him two things. Supremacy over the Church plus the power to forgive or retain sins. The other apostles were not given the keys but were given the power to forgive or retain sins.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, we call this repetitive coupling, frequently used in the bible as demonstrated in the prophets, psalms, proverbs etc.

This I know. However…

A clause will state a premise, followed by a statement that expands and clarifies on the original thought. Which is precisely what we see here, and why they are connected by a semicolon or comma.

Two thoughts:

• the “semicolon or comma” – or more precisely, their function – is in the English, not the original Greek. In the original, we see a full stop, as it were (with the appropriate sidebar about systems of writing in antiquity).
• If “keys” link to “binding and loosing”, then why only in Mt 16? Why would the same author – if he intended to make the same point, but with a wider target – not mention the keys in chapter 18?

which the early fathers agree with me upon, that the power of the keys is the power to forgive and retain sin.

No, your quotes didn’t demonstrate this. Must we go over this again? Apparently.

• Cyprian
  • Jesus calls Peter ‘the rock’, gives him the ‘keys’, as well as the power to ‘bind and loose’. Upon Peter – “the one” – He builds His church.
  • Although Jesus gives equal power (binding and loosing) and the ability to forgive sin in Jesus’ name, nevertheless, in order to manifest unity, He sources that unity in Peter.
• Eusebius
  • Nothing in your quotation that speaks to your case. He talks metaphorically about the world being the ‘Church’. He talks about Christ being its ‘rock’ and the teachings of prophets and apostles being its ‘foundations’. Otherwise, completely irrelevant to your argument.
  • But, a paragraph or so following your quote, Eusebius destroys your case: he identifies that Christ’s Church is build on Peter, not Peter and the apostles or even upon the keys and the binding/loosing, which was given to all.
• Augustine
  • Still no help to your case: he talks about Peter – “the first apostle” – and asserts “it was said to him, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom” and makes the case that Peter (himself, alone!) represents the universal Church.
  • Moreover, Augustine says “the Church … received from [Jesus] the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter.” (Emphasis mine.). Not “in the persons of the Twelve”, but just in Peter.

 

[Hodos]

the “semicolon or comma” – or more precisely, their function – is in the English, not the original Greek. In the original, we see a full stop, as it were (with the appropriate sidebar about systems of writing in antiquity).

No you don’t. Punctuation was not used in the original Magiscule text. Breaks in sentences could be demonstrated by no punctuation, or frequently they were demonstrated by using the word Kai. However, the opposite is frequently true. A Kai could be used to connect related ideas into a single sentence, or you get what we would consider to be run-on sentences. The point is that, these could be either two separate sentences, or two related clauses, both being possible readings. However, in the miniscule texts that come later, the two phrases were separated by a comma, which is the Greek form of the semi-colon indicating what I stated earlier. This could be said to be the scribe’s interpretation, however, these would be Catholic scribes agreeing with me on how the sentence breaks down grammatically.

 

[Gorgias]

Breaks in sentences could be demonstrated by no punctuation, or frequently they were demonstrated by using the word Kai. However, the opposite is frequently true. A Kai could be used to connect related ideas into a single sentence, or you get what we would consider to be run-on sentences.

OK, then… so, it’s really just a matter of interpretative preference, in your opinion? Then… who has the authority to interpret Scripture? (2 Peter 1:20, right?)

in the miniscule texts that come later, the two phrases were separated by a comma, which is the Greek form of the semi-colon indicating what I stated earlier.

And yet, a semi-colon separates clauses, not brings them together.

these would be Catholic scribes agreeing with me on how the sentence breaks down grammatically.

Which doesn’t imply an agreement on interpretation, however…

 

[Hodos]

OK, then… so, it’s really just a matter of interpretative preference, in your opinion? Then… who has the authority to interpret Scripture? (2 Peter 1:20, right?)

No one said that. I said the text gives the explanation right there. You are the one attempting to bring in some kind of gnostic secret knowledge from outside the text to interpret it.

And yet, a semi-colon separates clauses, not brings them together.

A semi-colon does indicate two clauses that can be independent sentences, but emphasizes the fact that they are connected to one another. Typically one clause will state something, and the other clause will expand upon that statement.

Which doesn’t imply an agreement on interpretation, however…

It would indicate that they believe the statements are related to one another as I stated before.

 

[Gorgias]

You are the one attempting to bring in some kind of gnostic secret knowledge from outside the text to interpret it.

Nah. I’m just pointing out what the Church has taught – openly, and without the notion of “hidden knowledge”! It would seem more the case that this variant reading – which wasn’t held to be a “Christian” reading until after 1500 years of the Church’s existence! – seems to be making a claim to novel and heretofore hidden knowledge!

It would indicate that they believe the statements are related to one another as I stated before.

Again… personal interpretation of Scripture.