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

[catholic1seeks]

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!

 

[mattp0625]

They will deem anything as symbolic that seems to support the RCC.

They also try to say that rock was referring to something else, as though the subject of Jesus’s statement changed mid-sentence. They even cite Greek and apply a feminine meaning to a masculine name.

Additionally, the book of Acts is full of examples showing Peter leading the church after Pentecost.

Most Protestants believe that all believers are included in the “invisible church” and that scripture alone is the sole authority (which is not in scripture)

 

[MT1926]

Acts 1:20 implies succession:
20*For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and
‘His office let another take.’

Although I will say the greatest twisting on this passage I have ever seen was: St. Peter erred when he replaced Judas, which is why Jesus had to fix the error by making Paul an Apostle. He further cherry picked and twisted Galatians 2:11 & 14
11 When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong.
14 But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone
He interpreted this as “Peter screwed up by going back to the law and acting in a manner that supported the Levitical law. So Paul condemns this as well as being morally good in exchange for justification.” I think he was trying to say Peter lost his faith and was trying to be justified by works, not really sure everything he was trying to pull out of this verse. He finished with this shows that Paul took Peter’s authority and I guess the reason why Paul’s writings are superior to the Gospels. I thought the entire Bible was the inspired word of God but I guess there are different levels. I think this further proved that Peter no longer had authority and there could be no so called passing of the keys / successors in the Catholic Popes.

Matthew 19:26

 

[Harry123]

The Gospel of John is believed to have been written about 95AD.

By then, there was 3 more Popes after Peter (4 in total including Peter). Nowhere in the Gospel of John do we see John jumping up and down condemning this heresy of one Pope succeeding another.

Though i admit that maybe they weren’t called Popes back then, but simply “Bishop of Rome”. I don’t know. Someone might correct me. But this fact alone means there was succession of bishops (bishops of Rome) taking place. And John was doing alot of correcting of churches (in the book of Revelation) and nowhere do we see him condemning succession of hierarchy taking place …and it must have been taking place by then.

 

[mattp0625]

The name Linus is in scripture. So is Clement.

These are also the names of the second and fourth popes

Ignatius of Antioch separately wrote about bishops as well as the bishop of Rome during the first century

So did the historian Tertullian a couple centuries later.

 

[Todd977]

I think what Jesus said to Peter in Luke 12:41-43 about the steward set over his master’s household in his master’s absence also supports the notion of Peter being set over the whole Church in Jesus’ absence. And, what Jesus said there about the master returning and finding the steward supports the notion of successors of Peter as steward set over the whole Church until Jesus’ return.

 

[JohnR77]

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? T

Yes. They do:

Jesus’ own words imply a succession for the position He was bestowing on Simon, who was now to be called Rock, or Peter.

 Matthew 16:18-19
“ … and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.  I will      give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

 So, even when Peter dies the netherworld, or death,       would not prevail.  This is because another person is appointed to that      position of the holder of the keys.

Read more on Keys at
defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock3.html

Most Protestants believe that all believers are included in the “invisible church”

But Scripture points to a Hierarchical Visible Church that has Apostolic Succession.
See
**Apostolic Succession **

He further cherry picked and twisted Galatians 2:11 & 14
11 When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong.
14 But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone

See
[Peter and Paul and Galatians = Dissent ? ](http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html) Saint Paul rebukes Saint Peter in Galatians chapter 2. However, this does not justify dissenting from the successor of Saint Peter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would say, yes, the key do imply succession, as they relate to Peter. I would also understand keys in light of the fact that the Apostles held “offices,” which go back even to the OT, and had occupants succeed one another in those offices. From an old thread:

For apostolic succession, I recommend delving into typology and the nature of a Biblical office in the OT as fulfilled in the NT. In the OT, for instance, you had the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood (e.g. Deut. 3:26, 2 Chron. 35:2) priesthood passing on occupancy of the office of priest. If you study the surrounding texts in these books, you will see the lineage of occupants for the ministerial office in question. In the NT, this concept is carried on, but the lineage does not necessarily follow physical descendancy but spiritual descendancy. Paul speaks of the office given to him (e.g. Rom. 11:13), and of course Paul as the ordainer of Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6) taught Timothy the norms for selecting someone for the “office of bishop” (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:1).

You have a verse in 2 Timothy indicating 4 generations of succession:*And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (1 Tim. 2:2)*The generations go Paul-Timothy-faithful men-others.

The earliest ECFs also affirmed all this:Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour. (Clement, Letter to Corinthians, #44, ca 90 A.D.)

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and {to demonstrate} the succession of these men to our own times…hat 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, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those {faithful men} who exist everywhere. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3, ca 180 A.D.)

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #1
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?

This is the solid evidence of Christ’s installation of Peter and successors.
Yes, the Keys do, and there is much more.

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus we see that Jesus very specifically formed His Church, and no other, on Peter the leader of the twelve Apostles. Further, the Sacred Scriptures emphasise:
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1). St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

Jesus, having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Why on earth should a silly notion be accepted that Jesus did not intend His Truths in His Church to be present for mankind for all time?

The clincher is the Greet Commission to His Apostles:
"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 18-20).

How foolish to concoct the idea that Christ would leave His Church with no one to lead Her on Peter’s death – no legitimate successor.

 

[MT1926]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT1926 View Post
He further cherry picked and twisted Galatians 2:11 & 14
11 When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong.
14 But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone

See

     [Peter  and           Paul  and  Galatians  =  Dissent ?  ](http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html)                                 Saint Paul rebukes Saint Peter in Galatians              chapter 2.   However, this does not justify dissenting from the              successor of Saint Peter.

John,

Thank you so much for that link. I almost didn’t post on this thread. I was afraid my post was looking like an anti-protestant jab. But I am so glad I did. When that guy started in on that twisting I knew he was way off on his interpretation, but was at a loss on how to respond. That link was amazing, it helped bring Galatians 2:11-14 into focus for me. Thank you St. Jerome.

Thanks again,

Matthew 19:26

 

[JonNC]

Speaking as a Lutheran, but not for Lutherans or Lutheranism.

=catholic1seeks;13594546]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.

Not necessarily. Keeping in mind that St. Peter also established the church in Antioch, I have no problem seeing the leadership role of St. Peter existing past the apostolic era, since through the first millennium that leadership is apparent. Clearly the Church prior to the schism recognized a primacy after the apostolic era.

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

The fact that St. Peter first receives the Keys is true, but it is also true that he receives the keys for the Church, and that the Keys are evident in the churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Keys belong to the Church, not one particular bishop.

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.

Of course they were not physical keys, but you said it well, Peter receives the Keys on behalf of the Church. The Keys exist today in the Church (which is more than those in communion with the Bishop or Rome.

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!

Did my answers help, even though I know a Catholic will not agree?
Obviously, other communions will hold dramatically different views.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

This Protestant view assumes that when Christ established the church, He established an invisible church or spiritual-only church.

This also assumes He made allowances for conflicting doctrine or 30,000 denominations in His church

… And He wasn’t in 16th century Germany.

 

[In_His_Grace]

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!

Christ commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven and commissions all believers (that being the Christian Church) to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments.

In His Grace

 

[MT1926]

The fact that St. Peter first receives the Keys is true, but it is also true that he receives the keys for the Church, and that the Keys are evident in the churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Keys belong to the Church, not one particular bishop.

Of course they were not physical keys, but you said it well, Peter receives the Keys on behalf of the Church. The Keys exist today in the Church (which is more than those in communion with the Bishop or Rome.

Did my answers help, even though I know a Catholic will not agree?
Obviously, other communions will hold dramatically different views.

Jon

Jon,
Thank you for your response and I am happy to see that you at least can agree that Peter did receive the keys. However, not that I disagree, but I’m sorry I don’t get it?
I thought the whole point of the “keys of the kingdom” was that they were given to the royal steward in the king’s absence?
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.”*

How can the keys go from Peter to the church and not to another royal steward? Now I am assuming when you say church you mean body of believers. But even if you mean physical churches that is still a lot of keys.

Correct me if I am wrong but don’t the keys equate to mean authority?

So if the Authority / “Keys exist today in the Church (which is more than those in communion with the Bishop or Rome.” That would mean there is more than one set of keys.

Well I have been running my own business for 22 years now and seems pretty clear to me that if everyone has the Authority then no one has the Authority. Which in the business world leads to kaos and failure.

God Bless

Matthew 19:26

 

[rfournier103]

So… according to those that deny Apostolic Succession; the keys were trasferred to Peter, but he in turn was not able/allowed to transfer them to anyone else? There could only be one transfer?

Seems strange to me.

 

[Abu]

In His Grace #13
Christ commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven and commissions all believers (that being the Christian Church) to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments.

As the Christ empowered St Peter alone to lead His Church with very specific powers, such flights of fancy are contrary to the Our Lord’s clear statements, so “all believers” is quite meaningless as the thousands of sects claiming to be believers, and all teaching something different and doing something different re “sacraments”, reveal very starkly.

 

[In_His_Grace]

As the Christ empowered St Peter alone to lead His Church with very specific powers, such flights of fancy are contrary to the Our Lord’s clear statements, so “all believers” is quite meaningless as the thousands of sects claiming to be believers, and all teaching something different and doing something different re “sacraments”, reveal very starkly.

The “Rock” is not Peter but Christ and in a sense also Peter’s confession. Christ commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven and commissions all believers to preach the Gospel. Acceptance of the Gospel, the doors to the kingdom of heaven are unlocked/opened. Rejection of the Gospel, the doors to the kingdom of heaven are locked/closed. As a Lutheran I also see the Sacraments as Gospel.

 

[spina1953]

The way I have understood it is that Peter is the rock Christ built His Church on. yes Peter’s faith plays an important as he is to strenghten the rest of us. Remember in John, Jesus told Peter to"feed my sheep" which He did not say to the other Apostles. While Jesus did give the keys to Peter he gave to Peter first but to the rest of the Apostles till He rose from the dead. That in a sense tells me that Jesus wanted Peter to lead His Church and the rest of the Apostles to follow while still spreading the Good News in union with Peter and each other. This is my take on it.

 

[In_His_Grace]

The way I have understood it is that Peter is the rock Christ built His Church on. yes Peter’s faith plays an important as he is to strenghten the rest of us. Remember in John, Jesus told Peter to"feed my sheep" which He did not say to the other Apostles. While Jesus did give the keys to Peter he gave to Peter first but to the rest of the Apostles till He rose from the dead. That in a sense tells me that Jesus wanted Peter to lead His Church and the rest of the Apostles to follow while still spreading the Good News in union with Peter and each other. This is my take on it.

The last of the Apostles passed from the scene here on earth with the death of John. I understand the Catholic position, I truly do, but I don’t accept apostolic succession in the same sense as Catholics. I recite the creeds. I am part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as are all believers. This is the Church.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[steve_b]

The “Rock” is not Peter but Christ

From 2, It’s not one and not the other. Both are Rock.

and in a sense also Peter’s confession.

Who else said or knew that Jesus is the Christ and weren’t renamed Rock or given the keys to the kingdom nor told by Jesus He would build His Church on them?

Luke 4:41 , Demons
John 1:41 , Andrew, Peter’s brother
John 7:41 , “others” who are an untold number of people
John 11:27 , Martha

Point being, God selected Peter for his unique role in the Church, not from what he said but who he is to God.
I:

Christ commits to all believers the keys of the kingdom of heaven

Nope.
I:

and commissions all believers to preach the Gospel. Acceptance of the Gospel,

True we are to spread the gospel, and be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us.

Just as Judas office was replaced when he died, so was Peter’s office replaced when he died.