Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Bishopite]

[Fr Ambrose;1713069]Of the 14 quotes on that website 7 of them are misquoted or misrepresented.

All due deference “Fr.” but I don’t exactly trust your judgment on the validity of the quotes and there are a number of persons at Catholic Answers who know Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic far better than you, I’m sure (i.e. Fr. Mitch Pacwa) so I’ll trust them first, thank you. And also the www.ccel.org used by Montalban is a translation from Phillip Schaff who by the way was a Protestant and not a friend of Catholicism. Even this website (a Protestant site) objects to Schaffs interpretation.

If there is such a great amount of evidence why is it necessary to resort to such means?

Perhaps you missed much on your brief absense from this thread. Another reread of the thread perhaps will show you “evidence.” How about this from the Bible for starters…

"47. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, **are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. 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. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”**

 

[Bishopite]

[Fr Ambrose;1713069]Of the 14 quotes on that website 7 of them are misquoted or misrepresented.

All due deference “Fr.” but I don’t exactly trust your judgment on the validity of the quotes and there are a number of persons at Catholic Answers who know Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic far better than you, I’m sure (i.e. Fr. Mitch Pacwa) so I’ll trust them first, thank you. And also the www.ccel.org used by Montalban is a translation from Phillip Schaff who by the way was a Protestant and not a friend of Catholicism. Even this website (a Protestant site) objects to Schaffs interpretation.

If there is such a great amount of evidence why is it necessary to resort to such means?

Perhaps you missed much on your brief absense from this thread. Another reread of the thread perhaps will show you “evidence.” How about this from the Bible for starters…

"47. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, **are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. 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. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”**

 

[steve_b]

You don’t know that none of the others do. All you know is that he addressed one letter to the Romans in that manner. The only questions you put therefore come from
a) you assuming that this is so
and

He wrote 6 letters. Why just the Church of Rome does he say holds the presidency? Show where the others have EVER held the presidency.

Montalban:

ignoring earlier when I posted the introductions he gives to each of the churches he wrote to. They all differ.

And they are all short greetings.

Montalban:

to the Ephesians

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

This is an eastern church therefore he’s predicting that it will never waiver from the glory of God.

Where is this Church today?

montalban:

this is the worst of your assumptions. It was in fact not novel that each of those bishoprics was the ‘head’ of the churches in its region. Again I note you’ve ignore the evidence I cited re: the other greetings to other regional churches.
Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ, which is in Philadelphia of Asia, which hath found mercy and is firmly established in the concord of God and rejoiceth in the passion of our Lord and in His resurrection without wavering, being fully assured in all mercy; which church I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, that is eternal and abiding joy; more especially if they be at one with the bishop and the presbyters who are with him, and with the deacons that have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom after His own will He confirmed and established by His Holy Spirit.

Where is this Church today?

montalban:

In essence it is no different than praising any of the other churches such as
“The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence also I write to you. They are here with me for the glory of God, as also are ye; and they have comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp bishop of the Smyrnaeans. Yea, and all the other churches salute you in the honour of Jesus Christ. Fare ye well in godly concord, and possess ye a stedfast spirit, which is Jesus Christ.”

If all Churches and bishops are equal, why is it even necessary to bring up presidency of one Church therefore one bishop? Isn’t that unnecessary? If you say it to one then you have to say it to all. But he didn’t do that. In fact it’s conspicuously absent.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

All due deference “Fr.” but I don’t exactly trust your judgment on the validity of the quotes and there are a number of persons at Catholic Answers who know Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic far better than you, I’m sure (i.e. Fr. Mitch Pacwa) so I’ll trust them first, thank you.

Why are we putting “Fr.” in quotes now?

If I were you I would tell the people at Catholic Answers that they have on their site a quotation from Pope Saint Gregory which is so mangled and with so many excisions that its meaning is distorted, all in the name of upholding papal primacy. The end result is that people are left seriously wondering about the integrity of Catholic scholarship.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

All due deference “Fr.” but I don’t exactly trust your judgment on the validity of the quotes and there are a number of persons at Catholic Answers who know Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic far better than you, I’m sure (i.e. Fr. Mitch Pacwa) so I’ll trust them first, thank you.

Why are we putting “Fr.” in quotes now?

If I were you I would inform the people at Catholic Answers that they have on their site a quotation from Pope Saint Gregory which is horribly mangled and with so many excisions that its meaning is distorted. This seems to have been done in the name of upholding papal primacy whereas the correct quote works against it.

Catholics Answers may not be responsible; they may have taken the quote from elsewhere in good faith. All the same, the end result is that people are left seriously wondering about the integrity of Catholic scholarship.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Icons…

Ever seen an icon where someone other than St. Peter has the keys?

Yes. If you enter an Orthodox Church and look at the row of the Apostles on the icon screen you will find that some of the the apostles have keys. Probably Saint Bartholomew, Saint John…

From Saint John Chrysostom:

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit” (St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sorry about the double message. The first one did not appear, so after 10 minutes I rewrote it. A few minutes later they both appeared!

 

[Montalban]

Steve B:

He wrote 6 letters. Why just the Church of Rome does he say holds the presidency? Show where the others have EVER held the presidency.

They all hold the presidency in their own regions . But thanks for staying true to form, concentrating on the one verse, and ignoring the context where he says there’s nothing higher than a bishop, but Jesus.
Steve B:

And they are all short greetings.

Wow! Praise be to God, the church with the longest greeting is the sole holder of the keys!
Steve B:

Where is this Church today?

Everywhere still headed by a bishop and still keeping faith with the early church.
Steve B:

If all Churches and bishops are equal, why is it even necessary to bring up presidency of one Church therefore one bishop? Isn’t that unnecessary? If you say it to one then you have to say it to all. But he didn’t do that. In fact it’s conspicuously absent.

You’re the one making more of this than anyone else. Another church he says will always hold the true faith. It’s the only church he says this of. One could make more of this one verse too if one were of the same mind as yourself. The point being not that he greeted one church as ‘president’, but that he greets each church with exalted praise, and says that no bishop is headed by anyone other than Jesus.

But hey, lets just ignore every other word he mentions on the church and concentrate on ‘presidency’. Oh, you’re already doing that!

 

[Montalban]

Bishopite:

All due deference Fr. but I don’t exactly trust your judgment on the validity of the quotes and there are a number of persons at Catholic Answers who know Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic far better than you, I’m sure (i.e. Fr. Mitch Pacwa) so I’ll trust them first, thank you. And also the www.ccel.org used by Montalban is a translation from Phillip Schaff who by the way was a Protestant and not a friend of Catholicism. Even this website (a Protestant site) objects to Schaffs interpretation.

So, they use his translation, but object to it! Hmmm!?

You hardly argue by context at all. For instance when I show that a quote from Catholic answers skips a bit you don’t touch it at all. It’s not a matter of ‘definition’ of a word or two, its whole-scale editing.

They show Peter being praised, and the fuller quote shows Peter and John being praised.

Perhaps you missed much on your brief absense from this thread. Another reread of the thread perhaps will show you “evidence.” How about this from the Bible for starters…

Bishopite:

"47. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. 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. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”

Are the other apostles given the rights of binding and loosing? Yes indeed.

 

[Bishopite]

Fr Ambrose;1714552]Why are we putting “Fr.” in quotes now?

I’m putting “Fr.” because you are an Eastern Orthodox priest as you told me earlier, is this not true? It’s actually a compliment and respect to your priesthood and wasn’t meant in a perjorative way

If I were you I would inform the people at Catholic Answers that they have on their site a quotation from Pope Saint Gregory which is horribly mangled and with so many excisions that its meaning is distorted. This seems to have been done in the name of upholding papal primacy whereas the correct quote works against it.

Ha…I’m sorry but again Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples and Karl Keating all speak Latin quite well and I know for a fact that Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin also speak Greek. Also a good friend of theirs (who is on EWTN openline) Fr. Mitch Pacwa speaks Greek, Latin and Hebrew and Aramaic (he says Mass in Aramaic being he’s a Maronite Catholic), so thanks but no thanks I’ll stick with their judgement on the patristics.

Catholics Answers may not be responsible; they may have taken the quote from elsewhere in good faith. All the same, the end result is that people are left seriously wondering about the integrity of Catholic scholarship.

Fair enough but they DO know their original languages, so I’m very sure anything they have apparently misquoted has been challenged by others, again why don’t you ask them?

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1714923]So, they use his translation, but object to it! Hmmm!?

No what happened was the same thing that happened to Fr. Ambrose. I clicked a response but the forum wouldn’t let me post and somehow this part was left out. I DIDN’T AT ALL mean Catholic Answers use Phillip Schaffs translation of the Church fathers, they obviously DON’T.

Also, earlier I asked you if www.ccel.org was an Eastern Orthodox site? Well it’s not, it’s from Calvin College who has Phillip Schaff’s translations of the Early Church fathers, at least the web site I read made this claim. They claim that Schaff’s translations are wrong and is based on the same “corrupt” texts as was the NIV (New International Version Bible translation). The NIV does have a few problems, one being the word Tradition (paradosis) where they only use the word Tradition when it speaks in the negative i.e., Mt 15, and when Tradition is used in the positive ,2 Thes 2:15, they use “teachings.” I have the NIV copy and others so this is true about the NIV. Anyway, don’t get me wrong I’m NOT saying the www.ccel.org translation of the early Church fathers is good or bad, I don’t actually know since I don’t well enough know Greek or Latin.
And I’ll warn you, this site is very anti-Eastern Orthodox and of course anti-Catholic for sure, but if you want to read it yourself here is the link… http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/criteria_-_eoc.htm

Here is what I meant to say . THESE Protestants on THIS SITE object to Phillip Schaffs interpretation of the Church fathers.
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/criteria_-_eoc.htm

You hardly argue by context at all. For instance when I show that a quote from Catholic answers skips a bit you don’t touch it at all. It’s not a matter of ‘definition’ of a word or two, its whole-scale editing.

You see a portion that says a Bishop is head of his community and then absolutize it as though ALL Bishops are equal and you say I don’t know the context?

Are the other apostles given the rights of binding and loosing? Yes indeed.

Montalban, Montalban why do you keep kicking against the goads?
You are ignoring Scriptural TRUTH and then attempt to make equal binding and loosing with the keys to the kingdom. Again to refresh your memory, Bishops can’t universally bind and loose (that is to say they can’t promolgate something upon the entire Church) without the keys to the kingdom, which ONLY Peter holds, Mt 16:19. The Bishops can bind and loose in their own individual dioceses’ since they have the power to bind and loose Mt 18:18. The Bishop of Rome (Pope) can bind and loose upon the universal Church and his local Church and this again is why Scripture supports the reality of the papacy…

Originally Posted by Bishopite
"47. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. 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. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”

 

[Montalban]

No what happened was the same thing that happened to Fr. Ambrose. I clicked a response but the forum wouldn’t let me post and somehow this part was left out. I DIDN’T AT ALL mean Catholic Answers use Phillip Schaffs translation of the Church fathers, they obviously DON’T.

Quote:
Also, earlier I asked you if www.ccel.org was an Eastern Orthodox site? Well it’s not, it’s from Calvin College who has Phillip Schaff’s translations of the Early Church fathers, at least the web site I read made this claim. They claim that Schaff’s translations are wrong and is based on the same “corrupt” texts as was the NIV (New International Version Bible translation). The NIV does have a few problems, one being the word Tradition (paradosis) where they only use the word Tradition when it speaks in the negative i.e., Mt 15, and when Tradition is used in the positive ,2 Thes 2:15, they use “teachings.” I have the NIV copy and others so this is true about the NIV. Anyway, don’t get me wrong I’m NOT saying the www.ccel.org translation of the early Church fathers is good or bad, I don’t actually know since I don’t well enough know Greek or Latin.
And I’ll warn you, this site is very anti-Eastern Orthodox and of course anti-Catholic for sure, but if you want to read it yourself here is the link… exorthodoxforchrist.com/criteria_-_eoc.htm

Here is what I meant to say . THESE Protestants on THIS SITE object to Phillip Schaffs interpretation of the Church fathers.
exorthodoxforchrist.com/criteria_-_eoc.htm

So what? A Protestant site disagrees with him! Wow! And they’re rabidly anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox too. That’s like citing a crazy man as a witness, a crazy man who doesn’t like you, either! What a strange and unique defence you’ve put forward.

As it so happens this site is also one I wrote to some years ago. They’re nuts, in my humble opinion. They have some interesting things, such as exorthodoxforchrist.com/islam_%26_the_orthodox.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia quotes cites him in sevral articles…
An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in “The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge”, s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words:
newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

The use his translations a number of times! Still, if you want to come up with a novel way of avoiding the topic, you’ve got full marks.

Getting back on topic…
One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one.
Cyril of Alexandria
3rd Letter to Nestorius
monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_to_nestorius_3.shtml

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, Montalban why do you keep kicking against the goads?

What goads???

You are ignoring Scriptural TRUTH

Based on your a priori

and then attempt to make equal binding and loosing with the keys to the kingdom. Again to refresh your memory, Bishops can’t universally bind and loose (that is to say they can’t promolgate something upon the entire Church) without the keys to the kingdom, which ONLY Peter holds, Mt 16:19.

In your church they can’t. Yes. That’s true.

The Bishops can bind and loose in their own individual dioceses’ since they have the power to bind and loose Mt 18:18. The Bishop of Rome (Pope) can bind and loose upon the universal Church and his local Church and this again is why Scripture supports the reality of the papacy…

Show me how Jesus gave two different ways of binding and loosing? (other than you repeating how your church already operates and working back from that) Ooops! I’ve asked you this question many times before and you’ve not yet answered

 

[Montalban]

Compare the first passage
Matthew 16:19
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."
with the second…
Matthew 18:18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." It shows all the Apostles being made equal.

All you need do is show how these two passages mean two distinct powers/rights of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Ha…I’m sorry but again Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples and Karl Keating all speak Latin quite well and I know for a fact that Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin also speak Greek. Also a good friend of theirs (who is on EWTN openline) Fr. Mitch Pacwa speaks Greek, Latin and Hebrew and Aramaic (he says Mass in Aramaic being he’s a Maronite Catholic), so thanks but no thanks I’ll stick with their judgement on the patristics.

So what I hear you saying is that these people are responsible for that very distorted quote from Saint Gregory the Great even in spite of all their fluency in various languages. Doesn’t that make the bad scholarship even worse!

Please compare the quote on their website with the full quote which I have given. What they (or somebody from whom they took the quote) have done is cut out the phrases where the Pope is saying that the three bishops of Rome and Antioch and Alexandria are equal and share equally in the one See of Peter. They, or somebody, cut out these sections and left only the sections which promote Peter. Whoever did this is, speakly frankly, not a honest man.

For example, he cut out:
“…with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.”

And he has cut out:
“Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside…”

The appearance of this distorted quote on www.catholic.com is very bad scholarship and does the site no credit. Someone should correct it.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

No what happened was the same thing that happened to Fr. Ambrose.

Yes, I think the computers have been having a bad day.

Montalban, Montalban why do you keep kicking against the goads?
You are ignoring Scriptural TRUTH and then attempt to make equal binding and loosing with the keys to the kingdom.

“Bishopite,”

YOU are ignoring the patristic evidence which contradicts what you are saying. Let me refresh your memory

Are the keys something different to binding and loosing?
"This refers to the keys about which it is said “whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” - Augustine, Sermon III/8

“The keys of the heavens, that whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” - Chrysostom, Homily 54.2-3.
There you have the most famous theologians from East and West saying that the keys and binding and loosing are the same thing, but you want to tell me your Johnny come lately theory that the keys are something different that gives papal supremacy?

 

[RyanL]

Yes. If you enter an Orthodox Church and look at the row of the Apostles on the icon screen you will find that some of the the apostles have keys. Probably Saint Bartholomew, Saint John…

I’ve never been to an Orthodox Church, and I can’t seem to find any pics online which show what you claim. I looked at a few virtual tours, but also couldn’t find an example of what you’re talking about. Would you mind posting a link?

Second, do you have any icons pre-schism which show the same? One of the ones I posted was from the 6th century, and (in my mind) demonstrates a clear pre-schism understanding of who had the keys. I’d be happy to take a look at anything you can produce which calls that into question.
Fr. A:

From Saint John Chrysostom:

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, …

Yes, yes, I’m familiar with this favorite quote of the Orthodox. But that’s not what I asked. I asked about icons.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Bishopite]

[Fr Ambrose;1715496]

YOU are ignoring the patristic evidence which contradicts what you are saying. Let me refresh your memory

With your brief absence you’ve missed much. See post # 555 for patristic evidence and #159 which is not my post.

Are the keys something different to binding and loosing?"This refers to the keys about which it is said “whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” - Augustine, Sermon III/8

“The keys of the heavens, that whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” - Chrysostom, Homily 54.2-3.

This is the best you can do? And I’m accused of “quote mines?”

And…you haven’t cited your source, yet you complain when others or myself don’t.

I agree with both quotes…And I can relate to Montalban when he says he has to again repost what he’s already responded too, but here is what I said to him in post # 669 asking me the same question…

Universally the Bishops can’t (that’s why Eastern Orthodox can agree on a simple thing like the canon) but the Bishop collectively can if they are in union with the Bishop of Rome one can because only he holds them, see Mt 16:19 Jesus said I give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom. This is a disctictively important and pivitol point in Scripture since Peter not only receives a name change but is given exlusively, the keys to the kingdom.

That Peter is given and holds the keys are the “key” (pun intended) to the greater authority

This is clearly and specifically backed by Mt 16:19 where Jesus ONLY gives Peter the keys and he gets to bind and loose and uses the singular [you]. In Mt 18:18 Jesus uses [you guys] and the Apostles ONLY receive binding and loosing.

There you have the most famous theologians from East and West saying that the keys and binding and loosing are the same thing, but you want to tell me your Johnny come lately theory that the keys are something different that gives papal supremacy?

When the Bishops collectively bind and loose in union with the Bishop of Rome then their “binding and loosing” is effective upon the entire Church. Separately the Bishops can bind and loose in their own diocese but the universal authority belongs to the Bishop of Rome. So do you believe the Bible is a “Johnny come lately?” Because it bolsters the Catholic view…

1. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
2. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. 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. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”

 

[mich2]

Compare the first passage
Matthew 16:19
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."
with the second…
Matthew 18:18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." It shows all the Apostles being made equal.

All you need do is show how these two passages mean two distinct powers/rights of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’

My opinion would be that Matthew 18:18 does not speak of the apostles individually, but collectively.

**…If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **

18 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.

This may have a direct refference to the words directed to Peter “upon this rock I will buid my Church.” Therefore the Church, collectively speaking,as a unity, does indeed,have in possession, the keys, which have been given to Peter… the foundation upon which the Church has been built.

Andre

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1715292]

Getting back on topic…
One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority.
For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one.
Cyril of Alexandria
3rd Letter to Nestorius
monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_to_nestorius_3.shtml

You do this perpetually, you see a few words and assume something that isn’t at all there. “Equal honour” does NOT mean “equal authority” does it? Both Peter and John were Bishops therefore both receive “equal” honour, however quoting Montalban Peter has a “kind of primacy” which of course means he is has is a kind of leader; that he is the head Apostle. This is a typical stretch you make when you quote the fathers, you read where a Church father says all Bishops are equal, so what? Of course they ARE!! They are all Bishops. But one Bishop stands out because he has a “kind of primacy” Peter=Rock=Kepha.