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

[steve_b]

With all due respect Steve, your negative response to my question cannot possibly be true. I understand that your beliefs as a Catholic are based on your faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of scripture and history, this, of necessity, requires private interpretation of scripture and history on your part. Help me out here, what am I not understanding?

In His Grace

• Help me out here. Where have I given you my private interpretation in my previous post? #[29 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13599553&postcount=29) please** Be specific**
• What I’m showing with evidence, #34 is that the Catholic Church has been here from the beginning.

As far as keys, please show me from scripture where anyone other than Peter received the keys from Jesus?

 

[JonNC]

You confused me on these 3 quotes, could you please explain in more detail?

I have never heard anyone say there are 240 some Catholic Churches.

Divided from who?

The only thing I can assume is you are stating the Catholic Church today has split off of the original Catholic Church?

It might be me reading it wrong but the third quote seems worded confusing. Are you saying the keys are in the hands of the believers or are you saying each church has it’s own set of keys?

Thanks,

God Bless
Matthew 19:26

Hi Matthew,
I love would encourage you to research the methodology that arrived at “30,000”. It also determined there are 240 some Catholic Churches, based on counting “national churches”.

Divided from those 30,000 denominations you were talking about . Simply put, I’m no more a Baptist than you are.

No , there has only ever been one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church is a central part of it.
What I’m saying is the Church established by Christ is one Church, and it will be united again.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Hi Matthew,
I love would encourage you to research the methodology that arrived at “30,000”. It also determined there are 240 some Catholic Churches, based on counting “national churches”.

Divided from those 30,000 denominations you were talking about . Simply put, I’m no more a Baptist than you are.

No , there has only ever been one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church is a central part of it.
What I’m saying is the Church established by Christ is one Church, and it will be united again.

Jon

Not to split hairs, but I’m not sure it matters if there are 1,000 or 30,000. They are still schisms of churches with conflicting doctrines.

That said, here is a random link I just found detailing the 30,000:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

Yes, I wouldn’t claim to be baptist. They are a church in schism, established by John Smyth, adopting some of Luther’s doctrines but not all, and a separate entity.

Baptists even fabricate their own “apostolic succession” using Waldo and the Cathars.

Sorry, I don’t see a church with separate origins (16th century Germany) and separate doctrines as the same thing.

 

[JonNC]

• Help me out here. Where have I given you my private interpretation in my previous post? #[29 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13599553&postcount=29) please** Be specific**
• What I’m showing with evidence, #34 is that the Catholic Church has been here from the beginning.

As far as keys, please show me from scripture where anyone other than Peter received the keys from Jesus?

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

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; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty. (John Chrysostom. Homily 1 on the Gospel of John, Preface, 2. Translated by Charles Marriott. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240101.htm.)

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

 

[commenter]

I have never heard anyone say there are 240 some Catholic Churches.

The methodology used in that estimate omits international churches. In other words, the Catholic Church in Belgium is one denomination, the Catholic Church in Canada is another denomination. The other poster, JonNC doesn’t believe that, but simply used that quote to illustrate another figure they used, 30,000 Protestant denominations, as also shaky data.

I suggest not dredging up that 30,000 figure. Fair enough to say that Catholicism -Catholics in union with the Pope - is singular, and Protestantism is plural. It doesn’t matter much if there are 30,000 or 2 denominations; it’s plural.

I’m not sure why, but that 30,000 figure hits a button on CAF, and many posters (not Jon) will discount everything else you say after you use that number.

 

[mattp0625]

The methodology used in that estimate omits international churches. In other words, the Catholic Church in Belgium is one denomination, the Catholic Church in Canada is another denomination. The other poster, JonNC doesn’t believe that, but simply used that quote to illustrate another figure they used, 30,000 Protestant denominations, as also shaky data.

I suggest not dredging up that 30,000 figure. Fair enough to say that Catholicism -Catholics in union with the Pope - is singular, and Protestantism is plural. It doesn’t matter much if there are 30,000 or 2 denominations; it’s plural.

I’m not sure why, but that 30,000 figure hits a button on CAF, and many posters (not Jon) will discount everything else you say after you use that number.

Here is a pretty good list under the Protestant section:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

 

[commenter]

quote from St. John Chrysostom cited in earlier post:

“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; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty…”

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.
(end JonNC’s post)

Actually this seems to refer to St. John, the Apostle, in his heavenly state. He in some way is ministering to Christians hundreds of years after he died. He is a saint. It doesn’t say he held the keys - past tense - in his lifetime. It says he holds the keys now.

This may mean that the college of apostles, or even all the saints in Heaven, hold the keys of Heaven, after they die. It does not necessarily mean he or anyone other than Peter held the keys during Peter’s lifetime.

Catholics believe a few non-apostles, such as Linus, Cletus, etc “held the keys” of **earthly ministry ** one at a time, even during John’s lifetime; and that Francis holds the keys now. Even we don’t believe Peter held the keys of **earthly ministry **after he died, though who knows what job he has up there now? In fiction, not tradition, his job now duplicates his earthly job (I hope I won’t be a social worker again).

 

[Thorolfr]

 

[mattp0625]

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

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.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

Many scholars of early Christianity would consider your version of an early Christianity which was still mostly unified under the Bishop of Rome with a small number of “schismatics” to be a mythic one constructed at a later time. For example, Bart Ehrman writes in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2

What could be more diverse than this variegated phenomenon, Christianity in the modern world? In fact, there may be an answer: Christianity in the ancient world. As historians have come to realize, during the first three Christian centuries, the practices and beliefs found among people who called themselves Christian were so varied that the differences between Roman Catholics, Primitive Baptists, and Seventh-Day-Adventists pale by comparison.

Most of these ancient forms of Christianity are unknown to people in the world today, since they eventually came to be reformed or stamped out. As a result, the sacred texts that some ancient Christians used to support their religious perspectives came to be proscribed, destroyed, or forgotten – in one way or another lost. Many of these texts claimed to be by Jesus’ closest followers. Opponents of these texts claimed that they had been forged….

Then on page 4, Ehrman writes:

Modern Christianity is not lacking in a diversity of its own, with its wide-ranging theologies, liturgies, practices, interpretations of Scripture, political views, social stands, organizations, institutions, and so on. But virtually all forms of modern Christianity, whether they acknowledge it or not, go back to one form of Christianity that emerged as victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of Christianity decided what was the “correct” Christian perspective; it determined who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set aside as “heretical,” teaching false ideas.

And then, as a coup de grace, this victorious party rewrote the history of the controversy, making it appear that there had not been much of a conflict at all, claiming that its own views had always been those of the majority of Christians at all times, back to the time of Jesus and his apostles, that its perspective, in effect, had always been “orthodox” (i.e. the “right belief”) and that it opponents in the conflict, with their other scriptural texts, had always represented small splinter groups invested into deceiving people into “heresy” (literally meaning “choice”; a heretic is someone who willfully chooses not to believe the right things).

 

[mattp0625]

Many scholars of early Christianity would consider your version of an early Christianity which was still mostly unified under the Bishop of Rome with a small number of “schismatics” to be a mythic one constructed at a later time. For example, Bart Ehrman writes in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2

Then on page 4, Ehrman writes:

It’s not my version. It’s Ignatius of Antioch’s version. He wrote letters. He was there at the beginning and named it Catholic.

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

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #
Many scholars of early Christianity would consider your version of an early Christianity which was still mostly unified under the Bishop of Rome with a small number of “schismatics” to be a mythic one constructed at a later time

Apparently they follow the myth that the Sacred Scriptures are a myth.

**The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All 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, also to the Twelve]
**
Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The second error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Now with that authority, and legality, from God Himself, the reality of Peter being the Rock on which Christ founded His only Church is exemplified by the recognition of Peter’s status in Christ’s Church.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

From the N.T. we know that Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time, which would mean the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church which He had bestowed on Peter alone. (Mt 16:18). Early Church history, e.g. St Irenaeus, taught by St Polycarp who had been a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in his great work Adversus Haereses in Bk 3, Sect 2 “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop.”

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that followed.

 

[commenter]

Many scholars of early Christianity would consider your version of an early Christianity which was still mostly unified under the Bishop of Rome with a small number of “schismatics” to be a mythic one constructed at a later time. For example, Bart Ehrman writes in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 1-2

Bringing up Bart is a double edged sword. He was raised Evangelical, later left Christian belief. This is not an “Ad Hominem” attack, just pointing out where this man, who is an accomplished scholar, is coming from. The problem for Protestants in bringing him up:

• He says there were many Christianities, each of who might claim to be successors to the apostles;
• He says one of these forms, what we now call Catholicism, surged to power and claimed exclusive truth;
• As part of their exercise of power, they (Magisterium) stamped out all but vestiges of competing Christianities, picked out the familiar 27 books as the NT canon, and tried to eliminate other scriptures as much as possible. The other scriptures, if chosen, would have defined Christianity in diverse other forms; not a little different like Protestantism, but wildly different from Catholic, and from each other.

So if you take Bart’s work seriously, you either conclude

1. the Magisterium is good, but needed to exercise authority early on; Catholicism is the only valid Christianity because it picked the canon of the NT, the Magisterium made one list of “ECF” and another list of “heretics”. The Magisterium specifically decided what would become “Tradition” and what would not.

or

1. Catholicism and Protestantism are both wrong because they both depend on the Magisterium’s canon which eliminated other worthy canons. Genuine Christianity now would reintroduce other NT scriptures (which some groups are now doing).

either way Protestantism - dependent on the familiar 27 book Magisterium canon, but outside that same Magisterium - falls; you can’t have sola scriptura if any and every book can be a scripture, a la carte.

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s not my version. It’s Ignatius of Antioch’s version. He wrote letters. He was there at the beginning and named it Catholic.

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

Without seeing the context it’s difficult to say what he meant, but it’s doubtful that his use of the word “catholic” was meant as the name of a church to distinguish it from other churches. It probably is being used as an adjective from the Greek καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

 

[mattp0625]

Without seeing the context it’s difficult to say what he meant, but it’s doubtful that his use of the word “catholic” was meant as the name of a church to distinguish it from other churches. It probably is being used as an adjective from the Greek καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

Semantics aside, he was the first to use the word to describe the church. Why is the word any different now?

You can read his letters for yourself. They are not hard to find. Bishops administering Eucharist, the real body of Christ, sounds awfully Catholic to me

Additionally, I believe his words were something like - stand aloof from schismatics

 

[Thorolfr]

or

1. Catholicism and Protestantism are both wrong because they both depend on the Magisterium’s canon which eliminated other worthy canons. Genuine Christianity now would reintroduce other NT scriptures (which some groups are now doing).

either way Protestantism - dependent on the familiar 27 book Magisterium canon, but outside that same Magisterium - falls; you can’t have sola scriptura if any and every book can be a scripture, a la carte.

In my opinion, Christianity went from being fractured to being somewhat monolithic for about a thousand years, and then went back to being fractured again. None of these groups I believe has always had all the truth but many of them have had some of the truth.

As for the canon of NT scripture, I don’t believe that all of the books are equally inspired or equally worthy of being included in the canon. Some books, in my opinion, were included when they shouldn’t have been and perhaps some other books were excluded when they shouldn’t have been. For example, even many Protestant scholars will admit that Paul is probably not the author of 7 of the epistles that were attributed to him. If earlier Christians had realized that Paul did not write these 7 epistles, would they still have included them in the canon?

 

[In_His_Grace]

 

[MT1926]

The methodology used in that estimate omits international churches. In other words, the Catholic Church in Belgium is one denomination, the Catholic Church in Canada is another denomination. The other poster, JonNC doesn’t believe that, but simply used that quote to illustrate another figure they used, 30,000 Protestant denominations, as also shaky data.

I suggest not dredging up that 30,000 figure. Fair enough to say that Catholicism -Catholics in union with the Pope - is singular, and Protestantism is plural. It doesn’t matter much if there are 30,000 or 2 denominations; it’s plural.

I’m not sure why, but that 30,000 figure hits a button on CAF, and many posters (not Jon) will discount everything else you say after you use that number.

Commenter,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I just wanted to let it be known I didn’t bring up the 30,000 figure. I hear it thrown around all the time but never really looked into it. I think you hit the nail on the head with “It doesn’t matter much if there are 30,000 or 2 denominations; it’s plural.” I just never heard the 240 before and I think that is what entered my mind, “the Catholic church is one not plural”. I just wanted a clarification on where it comes from.

Thanks,

Matthew 19:26

 

[commenter]

In my opinion, Christianity went from being fractured to being somewhat monolithic for about a thousand years, and then went back to being fractured again. None of these groups I believe has always had all the truth but many of them have had some of the truth.

As for the canon of NT scripture, I don’t believe that all of the books are equally inspired or equally worthy of being included in the canon. Some books, in my opinion, were included when they shouldn’t have been and perhaps some other books were excluded when they shouldn’t have been. For example, even many Protestant scholars will admit that Paul is probably not the author of 7 of the epistles that were attributed to him. If earlier Christians had realized that Paul did not write these 7 epistles, would they still have included them in the canon?

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.

 

[MT1926]

Hi Matthew,

Divided from those 30,000 denominations you were talking about . Simply put, I’m no more a Baptist than you are.

Jon

Jon,

I meant no disrespect. The other Matt was the one to bring up the 30,000 denominations not me. I wasn’t talking about the 30,000 denominations nor do I throw that number around. I honestly never heard the 240 number before and wanted to know where it came from.

God Bless,

Matthew 19:26