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

[Rohzek]

Keep in mind that Catholicism in general is regarded within the academic community as an “extreme outlier”. Dr. Carroll is in the mainstream of Catholic Historians, though, naturally, not in the mainstream of historians who write about the Catholic Church.

I am considered an “extreme outlier” in the local Social Work community because I am prolife. That doesn’t say as much about me as it does about the social work community at the moment. Does that mean** I **shouldn’t be taken seriously?

Medieval and Late Antique history contains far more religiously affiliated and driven people than any other field in history. Medievalists also tend to be the most conservative of historians, although it might be slightly different for Late Antique historians.

 

[mattp0625]

Of course it is possible. AS is ordination by the laying on of hands by a valid bishop. There are many issues involved, such as form, intent, etc. But that’s the basic premise. There are lots of Lutheran pastors ordained in this way. Of course, the Catholic Church does not approve of them, and we wish they did, but that lack of approval doesn’t change their validity. Similarly, the presbyter ordinations of other Lutheran pastor are valid, just as the presbyter ordinations of the Cistercian abbots of the 1400’s were.

That’s fine, but I assume you’re good with me taking their word on it over yours.

Think about this, in regards to the dogmatic declarations of Vatican I. That’s 1800 years later, and without a truly ecumenical council.

Jon

The only succession any Lutheran minister has is with Luther.

 

[commenter]

I tend to believe what Catholic theologians say about the Catholic view of Lutheran teaching before I do an apologist. 1st, they’re more informed, in part because of dialogue.
2nd, they lack a desire to make the facts fit a preconceived position.

Jon

1. It is a shaky assumption that Catholics involved in ecumenism (whom you have quoted) are more reliably presenting Catholic teaching than Catholics involved in apologetics.

If you disagree, consider that Catholic ecumenists have been meeting with reps from the Church of England, Episcopal Church, and similar, liberal provinces in Anglicanism, since 1969. At each stage, they report significant progress. Even now.

1. Some Catholics with doctoral degrees in Theology oppose the Magisterium on many points; not referring specifically to ecumenists here. In other words, some “Catholic Theologians” aren’t “Catholic Theologians”, but some do, in fact, have a Mandatum from their bishop. They could be reliably referred to.
2. Apologists who are in union with the current Magisterium are reliable guides as to what the Church teaches, in my opinion.

 

[steve_b]

Medieval and Late Antique history contains far more religiously affiliated and driven people than any other field in history. Medievalists also tend to be the most conservative of historians, although it might be slightly different for Late Antique historians.

Whether an historian is left or right in their leanings, historically speaking it’s worth noting

Medieval times = 5th century - 15th century
And during THAT time we see Eastern Orthodoxy of many stripes come into being during mid medieval times, and Protestantism of many stripes come into being late medieval times

OTOH, the Catholic Church

• was here from the 1st century when Jesus established her,
• has her 4 marks of One Holy Catholic Apostolic, defined by ecumenical council in the 4th century,
• was here through medieval times, and post medieval times
• and based on it’s longevity, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is still here today united with Peter’s successor, and will be here forever.

As an aside, Re: the labels “conservative / liberal, right / left” I would just add

Eccl 10:2
A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool’s heart toward the left.

Therefore, speaking for myself, to guarantee right thinking and direction, I know I have to follow and always be united with the one who holds the keys .

 

[steve_b]

Medieval and Late Antique history contains far more religiously affiliated and driven people than any other field in history. Medievalists also tend to be the most conservative of historians, although it might be slightly different for Late Antique historians.

Whether an historian is left or right in their leanings, historically speaking it’s worth noting

Medieval times = 5th century - 15th century
And during THAT time we see Eastern Orthodoxy of many stripes come into being during mid medieval times, and Protestantism of many stripes come into being late medieval times

OTOH, the Catholic Church

• was here from the 1st century when Jesus established her,
• has her 4 marks of One Holy Catholic Apostolic, defined by ecumenical council in the 4th century,
• was here through medieval times, and post medieval times
• and based on it’s longevity, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is still here today with Pope Francis, 266th successor to Peter, at the helm, and will be here forever.

As an aside, Re: the labels “conservative / liberal, right / left” I would just add

Eccl 10:2
A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool’s heart toward the left.

Therefore, speaking for myself, to guarantee right thinking and direction, I know I have to follow and always be united with the one who holds the keys .

 

[Randy_Carson]

Many non-Catholics may agree that Peter had a primacy in the early Church, even acting as the leading figure once Jesus ascended into Heaven. But they will say that this leadership of Peter was inherent to the apostolic age; there was no* role* per se of Peter that passed on after him.

These non-Catholics often say that there is no indication from the Bible that the leadership of Peter was meant to endure through his successors.

Historical evidence aside, doesn’t the very notion of “Keys of the Kingdom,” which were given to Peter (Matt 16:18-19), imply succession?

For (1) What happened to the keys after Peter’s death? These weren’t literal, material keys, of course. But Christ bestowed a very real gift to the Church by giving this gift to one man, Peter. He gives Peter this in the very context of Christ describing his building the Church on Peter.

One could also talk about Isaiah 22 and the keys mentioned there. Jesus seems to be thinking of Isaiah 22 when giving Peter the keys. The language of “binding and loosing” is also reflected here. But in Isaiah, it was the chief steward over the House of David (under the King) who received the keys – and the chief steward’s office was one of succession.

So what do non-Catholic Christians usually say about all of this? Do they think the keys were given to all Christians through Peter? Do they think no one now has the keys? Etc. Non-Catholic replies appreciated, of course!

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 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.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

 

[Duane1966]

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

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

I am glad you are reading St. Chrysostom Jon. If you keep reading him you will realize that St. Chrysostom felt that the Apostles all had keys, which they could only use in union with Peter, because Jesus gave them the keys as as group. But since he gave Peter keys individually, which Jesus clearly did not do with the others, St. Chrysostom preached that St. Peter could use them individually, as seen from his homily #3 on the Acts, where he says what the Apostles could do collectively, Peter could do by himself.

Your interpretation contradicts Luke 22,

christ here clearly tells them there is none that is greater among them. Now, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a level of leadership exercised by St. Peter, but that cannot be interpreted, in light of Matt. 18, as Peter having the keys, restricted from the rest. The Key of Heaven belong to the Church, not one apostle, or one Bishop in his succession.

Christ clearly does not say that Jon. He sets up what the criteria is for the greatest among them, but nowhere does He say that they are all equal, that is just you reading that into the passage.

Collegial is precisely the nature of even St. Peter’s role in his leadership, not an authority over the rest, but an equality with them.

John 20;

• Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. 20And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.*

He says, “so I send you.” He sends them out as equals. Further, He then uses the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”. He doesn’t say it to Peter alone. He gives them equally, this, then follows with the same words again: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”
There is no two out of three have to agree. Each of them, equally.

So sending them all out to preach, and the fact that they can all forgive sins means they are all equals? Does Jesus ever say that they are all equal? Not at all. But let’s turn to what Chrysostom says about their equality.

“In the Kingdom, therefore, the honors were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact to the last degree; ‘for one star differeth from another star in glory.’ And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, ‘to sit on My right hand and on My left,’ he said, ‘is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,’ And He set Peter before them saying: ‘Lovest thou Me more than these?’ And John loved Him more than the rest. For of all there will be an exact examination; and if you excel your neighbor ever so little, God will not overlook it.” (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])

He saith to him, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

"If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."

“God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future.” (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

"When he is told, 'Thou canst not follow Me now,' he says, 'Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.' Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: 'And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,' viz. that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility, and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, ***when he should receive the government of the world,*** but that remembering his fault he might know himself." (Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 395[429])

Huh? Rule over the brethren? And Peter is going to receive the government of the world? Dang, that sounds like…wait for it… universal jurisdiction.!!! Thank you St. John Chrysostom.

To be continued…
.

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

More Chrysostom

Chrysostom also calls attention to the episode of the tribute money (Matt 27:23). Christ, he says, had to pay the didrachma as being a first-born son, “and as Peter seemed to be the first of the disciples,” the collectors came to him for information. When Our Lord by a miracle pays for Peter as well as Himself, “Do you see” cries the commentator:

"the excellence of the honor? See also the philosophy of Peter's disposition: Mark, his disciple, did not write down this incident....'In that hour the disciples of Jesus came to Him, saying: Which is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' The apostles felt a human passion, wherefore the evangelist notes it, saying, 'in that hour,' **when Christ honored Peter above the rest.** For either James or John was a first-born, yet He did nothing of the sort for them. Then being ashamed to acknowledge their feeling, they say not openly: 'Why hast thou honored Peter more than us?' and 'Is he greater than we?' for they were ashamed. But they inquire vaguely: 'Who is greater?' For when they saw the three preferred they did not mind, ***but when the honor was given to one instead, they were distressed. And not only at this, but putting many things together, they were angry. For He had said to Peter: 'I will give thee the keys,' and 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona'***and now 'give to them for Me and thee': and seeing his great boldness besides, they were irritated." (Hom 58[59] in Matt 1-2, vol VII, 566-9[584-7])

Jon, if you read other ECF’s, they concur with Chrysostom here (or he with them), that when they asked “who is the greatest?” it is because they were jealous of Peter.

Paul stands up to Peter in Galatians 2, and he speaks of the equality of ministers in 1 Cor. 3.
Steve, Peter did receive the Keys, then later did the Disciples, for the whole Church, which even now today sends out men who bind and loose in His name.

Jon

Standing up to someone does not equate equality, it just means you tell someone when they are wrong.

St. Chrysostom is careful to point out how St. Paul recognized the primacy of St. Peter over the others:

“See Paul’s wisdom,” he says (after quoting 1 Cor 9:5 “Have we not power to carry about a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas”), he puts the coryphaeus last, for in that position he places his most powerful point. For it was not so wonderful to represent the others taking about a sister as the primate [Greek], he who was entrusted with the keys of heaven." (Hom 21 in 1 Cor, vol X, 175[181])

On “I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, I am of Cephas” (1 Cor 1:12) compare also:

"If they must not be partisans of the teacher and first of the apostles who had instructed so great a multitude, much more must they not attach themselves to nobodies....It was not as preferring himself to Peter that he put him last, **but because he put Peter far above himself.** For he arranged his sentence in an ascending scale, that he might not be suspected of ding this out of envy, and to be taking away the honor of the others because he was jealous. This is why he placed himself first. For he who discredits himself before the others, does so not for love of honor, but because he greatly despises all such glory. He therefore receives the whole shock himself, and next places Apollo, and then Cephas." (Hom 3, in 1 Cor, 24[16])

That is actually part and parcel of the view of the early Church regarding the Bishop of Rome. He was first in honor. He was not considered to have supremacy of jurisdiction.
Nor does it imply that only the Bishop or Rome has the keys.
Jon

Sure he has jurisdiction Jon. Canon 6 of Nicaea basically shows it.

Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.

What they are saying here is that they recognize the ancient customs in those places still prevail, BECAUSE Rome recognizes that they prevail.

If this canon is to show that Rome only has jurisdiction in the West, would that not go against Mt. 16? In essence, would that not in fact be binding the Bishop of Rome?

Think about this, in regards to the dogmatic declarations of Vatican I. That’s 1800 years later, and without a truly ecumenical council.

Jon, how can it not be truly ecumenical, if all the criteria that made other councils ecumenical, were met? So you are who decides what is ecumenical, and what is not?

I have asked you twice before, and you have never answered a simple question. I will now ask a third time. What makes the Council of Chalcedon ecumenical in the eyes of a Lutheran?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

If you actually think about it, Paul was rebuking Peter because of his authority and position. Since Peter was under the sin of hypocrisy, Paul was rebuking him because he was leading others away.