Don't the "Keys" imply Successors of Peter?

[JonNC]

First, I am glad to see we are not adopting sola scriptura anymore. Church history and tradition can be valuable.

Next, just because one passage from one writer took liberties with words does not create doctrine. You’re assuming the writer meant something he did not.

Next, when did an apostle appoint Luther to anything? How do the apostles equate to all Protestant believers ?

While we are on church fathers, you might look at Ignatius of Antioch who first described the church as Catholic in the first century. He had choice words for schismatics. He also wrote strongly about staying with the bishop who administers the Eucharist.

Hi Matthew.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, but a few thoughts.

. Your first sentence betrays a misunderstanding of what sola scriptural does and is.
. I’m not sure at all the meaning of the second part. What do all Protestant believers have to do with a conversation about the keys and whether or not it implies the successors of St Peter?
the third is simply ad hominem. But yes, I’ve read him.

Interesting comparison to your post and commentor’s #47. His is on topic and responds to my use of St. John Chrysostom
Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Hi Matthew.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, but a few thoughts.

. Your first sentence betrays a misunderstanding of what sola scriptural does and is.
. I’m not sure at all the meaning of the second part. What do all Protestant believers have to do with a conversation about the keys and whether or not it implies the successors of St Peter?
the third is simply ad hominem. But yes, I’ve read him.

Ok, so you have a nuanced version of “scripture alone is the sole authority in all matters of faith”. I cannot account for all the nuances within Protestantism. Many other denominations would call reading the church fathers dangerous.

In the second part, you equated John having keys, which seems a libetry with words in one man’s writing, to all believers having keys. That’s a rather large leap. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that Peter was given the keys.

To me, Ignatius of Antioch is relevant here. He discusses loyalty to the bishop, one Euchsrist, one altar, and avoiding schismatics. That does not sound like the Catholic Church is made up of all believers.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Ok, so you have a nuanced version of “scripture alone is the sole authority in all matters of faith”. I cannot account for all the nuances within Protestantism. Many other denominations would call reading the church fathers dangerous.

In the second part, you equated John having keys, which seems a libetry with words in one man’s writing, to all believers having keys. That’s a rather large leap. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that Peter was given the keys.

To me, Ignatius of Antioch is relevant here. He discusses loyalty to the bishop, one Euchsrist, one altar, and avoiding schismatics. That does not sound like the Catholic Church is made up of all believers.

In the second part, you equated John having keys, which seems a libetry with words in one man’s writing, to all believers having keys. That’s a rather large leap.

So if you want to argue against the notion that the keys are in the hands of all believers, know that I don’t believe that.

Jon clearly stated that he doesn’t believe the keys are in the hands of all believers. According to “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod” from lcms website “Christ Himself commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”, anyway, I’m really confused. I’m just beginning to study Lutheranism, apparently I have a lot to learn.

In His Grace

 

[mattp0625]

Jon clearly stated that he doesn’t believe the keys are in the hands of all believers. According to “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod” from lcms website “Christ Himself commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”, anyway, I’m really confused. I’m just beginning to study Lutheranism, apparently I have a lot to learn.

In His Grace

Post #44 indicates the belief that the keys belong to the church. The church was defined as all believers.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew 18:18. He grants the keys to his disciples. And further, St. John Chrysostom says of the Apostle John:

Looking at the context of Mt 18:18

Reproving Another Who Sins

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, 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.*(“Mt 18 RSVCE - True Greatness - At that time the - Bible Gateway”)] 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Jon,

Where exactly are the keys mentioned? Keys aren’t mentioned

How did Jesus say arguments are to be settled?

Could one of them alone settle an disagreement? Not if one refuses to listen
Could 2 of them settle an agreement? Not of the one refuses to listen

What’s next then?

Take it to the Church.

When was Church and keys mentioned in the same group of sentences? When Jesus was talking to Peter one on one.

Mt 16:16*Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”c] 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you σοι , Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you σοι, you σὺ are Peter,d] and on this rocke] I will build my church, and the powers of deathf] shall not prevail against it.g] 19 I will give you σοι the keys of the kingdom of heaven,h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
*
σοι (you) 2nd person singular NOT plural
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=soi&la=greek

Said another way (grammatically)
I Jesus 1st person singular, give you Peter 2nd person singular, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever “you” singularly, bind and loose… is bound and loosed in heaven.

Peter is given the keys. The keys come through Peter to the Church that he is over.
J:

Here he clearly attributes the keys to the Apostle John.
St. Peter received the keys first, but the keys belong to the Church, not one bishop.

Jon

The keys come from one bishop (Peter and his successors to his office) to the Church that (Peter is over and in extension all the popes who succeed Peter’s office).

It’s interesting, when Chrysostom was deposed by much intrigue from fellow Eastern bishops, who did Chrysostom THEN seek help from? The pope. Unfortunately he waited too long to contact the pope.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Post #44 indicates the belief that the keys belong to the church. The church was defined as all believers.

Ok, I’ll just listen in and hopefully learn something. Thanks.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that from the beginning of the Church there were opposing views and understandings among the early Christians, Schisms started early on so far as I understand it just from reading the Epistles.There were conflicts regarding what to believe, and it has continued over the centuries. When Luther came on the scene with his new dogma’s and interpretations and theological teachings many others followed his lead in deciding what was to understood and believed and to be taught.

So today we have so many different interpretation and teachings and understandings of what the Christian faith is and should be that it seems almost a chaotic pool of mud, everyone having what they think is the truth and understanding of Scripture most of the time very much different from what another has all believing that they are being guided by the Holy Spirit, when in fact the Holy Spirit cannot contradict itself, so in effect all can’t be correct where there is so much in the way of differing opinions being placed as fact and truth.

From the beginning the Apostles looked first to Christ because he was their teacher and Master who they truly believed to be the Son of God, Afterwords Peter chosen to be the leader of the Church Christ wanted to build upon Peter giving him the keys shows us that Christ wanted Peter to be in charge of the Church on earth representing Christ and what Christ taught, but not taking his place as the head but caring for the Church till such time as Christ returns, thereby putting Peter in charge, by giving him the keys gives or gave Peter the authority as the leader just as he was in the group of Apostles with Jesus being the head. Otherwise if anyone could just decide to start a Church and deciding what Scripture means and what it says ends up like a body without a head.

 

[Thorolfr]

Keep in mind that every generation of Bible scholars disproves part of what the previous generation of scholars had “proved”. But every generation claims its new insights are permanent.

But the canon wasn’t chosen by “early Christians” in general, like a consensus from a committee. If it were, the NT canon would have 270 books perhaps. Ehrman rejects that (Protestant) thesis. The Catholic thesis is that right from the beginning, there was an authoritative Magisterium; that “the keys” - the papacy - did consult scholars, but made the decisions on the canon, as well as what constitutes sacred Tradition. The incredibly short NT canon supports that.

A given epistle is in the canon because it is inspired, not because Paul or someone else wrote it. Even if a new book were discovered today that scholars say was written by Paul, or Luke, etc. it would still not be in the canon. Catholics know the canon we have is inspired, because God used - guided - an early single entity - not a fellowship of equals with diverse centers of authority - to designate the canon (not canons).

Reject the early authoritative Magisterium, then lots of other canons claim equal attention today. (Have you noticed gnostic scriptures are printed a lot more now than they used to be?) If it were proven that Paul, or Luke did not write a certain book, how would that make it any less inspired? You may say they are mentioned in the Book of Acts, but so what? Lots of people are mentioned in that book, and lots of other Books of Acts were written that the Magisterium didn’t include in the canon.

People argue that the canon was chosen at this or that council (so no pope needed). But some single entity had to call a council, and decide this given council, and not many other ancient councils that chose gnostic or other scriptures, was useful. Others will say “obviously” the gnostic and similar canons were wrong because they utilized heretics, but it is obvious only in hindsight; some single, visible, human agency inspired by God had designated certain scholars as “ECF”, and others as “heretics”.

In 40 years in public service I can guess which documents came out of a single hierarchy, and which ones arose out of diverse centers of authority, by consensus of peers, with committees making the final decisions. The brevity of the NT canon shouts out “very early hierarchy”, with the keys likely held by one man at a time, before, during and after the 4th century.

Most historians of early Christianity do not find any evidence of an “early authoritative Magisterium.” Take, for example, Peter Lampe’s well regarded book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, p. 397:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75) and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship.

 

[commenter]

Most historians of early Christianity do not find any evidence of an “early authoritative Magisterium.” Take, for example, Peter Lampe’s well regarded book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, p. 397:

We are so used to having a very brief NT canon, we forget how incredibly short it is. The vast majority of candidate scriptures were ruled out. I know there are various possible criteria suggested, but someone had to choose the criteria; someone had to decide which criterion takes priority, as many books that were excluded meet some criteria for acceptance. Someone had the power to exclude the great majority of books. So a single, powerful hierarchy was in place by the early 300s. But it must have been in place much earlier because if it was newly powerful or newly united in 300, it would not have been so universally respected, since its NT canon was so widely accepted in fairly short time, given the slow communications of that era.

If the papacy somehow “emerged” in 300 AD, there would be evidence of a coup, or struggle; there would be contesting lines of popes supporting rival papacies, or maybe no line of prior popes. But there isn’t. There is a single line of popes going back to Peter, and forward long after the canon was established. We do know those people were fanatic about “succession” in general; that this bishop was ordained by that prior bishop, who traces his ordination…back to the apostles.

If the papacy were not established as chief of a single Magisterium by the 300s, the canon would have 270 books. Only a powerful, respected hierarchy could have rejected so many books, as this one did. The incredibly short canon points towards a papacy.

 

[Thorolfr]

We are so used to having a very brief NT canon, we forget how incredibly short it is. The vast majority of candidate scriptures were ruled out. I know there are various possible criteria suggested, but someone had to choose the criteria; someone had to decide which criterion takes priority, as many books that were excluded meet some criteria for acceptance. Someone had the power to exclude the great majority of books.

If there was some early authoritative Magisterium deciding what books to include in the canon, that Magisterium seems to have had a difficult time making a decision. Take the canonical history of Revelation, for example:

Today, if we talk about the Biblical Book of Revelation, we obviously mean the text credited to John. For some centuries, though, the question would have been “Which Revelation?” followed perhaps by a disapproving “Why are you reading that?”

*In the late second century, the Muratori Canon cited the Revelations of both John and Peter as approved texts, although noting that some contemporaries already wanted to purge Rev. Peter.

*In the 250s, Alexandrian Bishop Dionysius wrote a brilliant critical analysis of John’s Revelation that showed just how thoroughly many Christians of his time rejected the work: “Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticizing it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a Revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity.” Indeed, those critics blamed the work on the arch-heretic Cerinthus. Dionysius rejected such charges. Admitting the work’s obscurity, he was prepared to believe that it contained exalted mysteries that lay beyond his comprehension. He did however show that it certainly was not the work of the author who wrote the Gospel and Epistles attributed to John.

Even so, both texts remained in debate for centuries, especially if we look at the wider Christian world that spoke Greek and Syriac instead of Latin. If we look at canon lists over the following centuries, we find a mixed bag of opinions:

*Clement of Alexandria (c.200) certainly used Rev. Peter, and treated it as canonical. He begins a quote, “Peter, in the Apocalypse, says…”

*In the early fourth century, Eusebius listed both Revelations of John and Peter among the spurious texts, alongside the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. Confusingly though, he did add that while some rejected the Revelation of John, others included it in the approved canon. On balance he seems to think the book canonical, but he is far from certain.

*In the fourth century, Codex Claromontanus (Western) includes both Revelations of John and Peter.

*Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus (4th century), Council of Carthage (397), and the Decretum Gelasianum (Western, 6th century) – all include Rev. John, but not Rev. Peter.

By the fifth century, the church had apparently decided in favor of Rev. John but not Rev. Peter, but the story was more complex than this might suggest. Peter did not disappear totally, while John won only grudging acceptance.

In the mid-fifth century, church historian Sozomen wrote that “the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, which was esteemed as entirely spurious by the ancients, we have discovered to be read in certain churches of Palestine up to the present day, once a year, on the day of preparation, during which the people most religiously fast in commemoration of the Savior’s Passion” [Good Friday]. Even in the thirteenth century, the Armenian scholar Mkhitan knew Rev. Peter, and included it as a disputed or apocryphal New Testament work.

patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/07/approving-revelation/

 

[mattp0625]

Most historians of early Christianity do not find any evidence of an “early authoritative Magisterium.” Take, for example, Peter Lampe’s well regarded book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, p. 397:

Ignatius of Antioch, who was actually there, disagrees.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ignatius of Antioch, who was actually there, disagrees.

What does Ignatius have to say about the Magisterium?

 

[mattp0625]

What does Ignatius have to say about the Magisterium?

Ignatius had several letters, but they include the following :
He discusses maintaining loyalty to a bishop who properly administers the Eucharist.
He names the church Catholic
He describes one Eucharist, one altar, one bishop.
He said avoid schismatics and that schismatics will not inherit the kingdom of God
He said stand aloof from heretics that do not confess the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Jesus

He also wrote about the bishop of Rome but I did not read that part extensively

Historians say he was likely ordained by Peter and a student of John.

He was martyred in Rome

 

[Thorolfr]

Ignatius had several letters, but they include the following :
He discusses maintaining loyalty to a bishop who properly administers the Eucharist.
He names the church Catholic
He describes one Eucharist, one altar, one bishop.
He said avoid schismatics and that schismatics will not inherent the kingdom of God
He said stand aloof from heretics that do not confess the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Jesus

He also wrote about the bishop of Rome but I did not read that part extensively

Historians say he was likely ordained by Peter and a student of John.

He was martyred in Rome

What does he mean by “one bishop” There were a number of bishops, including himself (he was bishop of Antioch).

 

[mattp0625]

What does he mean by “one bishop” There were a number of bishops, including himself (he was bishop of Antioch).

So, the original Christians fled Jerusalem for Antioch. Peter was there too, but was later taken to Rome.

I do not believe there were hundreds of bishops at the time, or advanced lines of communication.

So if Antioch was where Peter and the original Christians were located, Ignatius must have had substantial authority.

Was he the only bishop alive? No. But he must have been the primary authority representing the Church in his region.

 

[steve_b]

Most historians of early Christianity do not find any evidence of an “early authoritative Magisterium.” Take, for example, Peter Lampe’s well regarded book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, p. 397:

Why not read the Fathers directly instead of what somebody says that they said through their particular lenses.

Ever read Irenaeus on this subject?

Against Heresies, Book III ch 2-3

(all emphasis mine)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, in as much as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of **Linus **the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

• Irenaeus is one man away from the apostle John.
• He was taught by Bp Polycarp who was a direct disciple of John
• Note: The Church of Rome has pre-eminent authority over every Church
• Note: he says this teaching comes from Apostolic teaching from Peter and Paul at Rome.
• Note: He mentions Clement in Rome, settling sedition among the Bishops of Corinth Greece. BTW, that action by Clement took place before John wrote Revelations.

 

[Thorolfr]

Why not read the Fathers directly instead of what somebody says that they said through their particular lenses.

There seems to be some confusion among the Fathers as to the line of succession of early popes. For example, Tertullian (c. 155-240) considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter whereas Irenaeus says that the second pope was Linus. Jerome listed Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter”. So what is a historian to make of all this confusion?

 

[steve_b]

There seems to be some confusion among the Fathers as to the line of succession of early popes. For example, Tertullian (c. 155-240) considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter whereas Irenaeus says that the second pope was Linus. Jerome listed Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter”. So what is a historian to make of all this confusion?

To answer your question, going by what you say

• Irenaeus says that the 2nd pope was Linus. That’s correct. Peter was the first
• Jerome has Clement as 4th pope? That’s true. Peter being the first
• As for Tertullian? I have no answer. I personally don’t read Tertullian because he very early on embraced the montanist heresy. So I personally don’t use him for making any points. But that’s just me.

picking just the 1st 12 slots

The Church list newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

1. • St. Peter (32-67)
   • St. Linus (67-76)
   • St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
   • St. Clement I (88-97)
   • St. Evaristus (97-105)
   • St. Alexander I (105-115)
   • St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
   • St. Telesphorus (125-136)
   • St. Hyginus (136-140)
   • St. Pius I (140-155)
   • St. Anicetus (155-166)
   • St. Soter (166-175)
   Irenaeus list
   
   1. • Peter
      • **Linus
        **
      • Anacletus;
      • Clement
      • Evaristus.
      • Alexander
      • Sixtus
      • Telephorus,
      • Hyginus;
      • Pius;
      • Anicetus.
      • Soter

 

[commenter]

If there was some early authoritative Magisterium deciding what books to include in the canon, that Magisterium seems to have had a difficult time making a decision. Take the canonical history of Revelation, for example:

QUOTE]
Who do you think determined the extremely short canon, **ruling out the great majority **of potential scriptures? common consensus by the thousand scholars/communities (and who chose who got to be on that committee; who decided how the voting rules go; who defines which scholar gets a vote)? Do you think a consensus with diverse (name removed by moderator)ut could have ruled out forever scriptures, some of which were likely used in worship and catechesis by this or that local church, and dear to the heart of various constituencies?

I ascertain that you have never served on a task force with equal multiple parties. They don’t issue 27 book canons. They issue 270 book canons, except the list would have grown a whole lot larger since then without a Magisterium, because no one had the authority to close the canon. They would be adding books in 2016.

To believe that 27 book canon came out of a committee with no Magisterium isn’t just like believing the Whale swallowed Jonah, it’s actually harder to believe than Jonah swallowing the Whale.

 

[JohnR77]

If there was some early authoritative Magisterium deciding what books to include in the canon, that Magisterium seems to have had a difficult time making a decision. Take the canonical history of Revelation, for example:

patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/07/approving-revelation/

I personally do not see a real problem here. A book was not considered canonical just because it was read here or there, but was generally accepted by the Church as a whole. The local councils in Hippo and Carthage got it right. The Pope’s affirmation of that list in a letter was not considered an absolute infallible decision.

I think the context of the times needs to be considered. Communication was not then as it is today. And consider, when the Pope today says artificial contraception is wrong all the priests readily agree, right ? The fact that the heretics were misusing John’s Rev did cause second thoughts by some prelates. Things take time…