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

[Abu]

No one else had the authority of Christ’s chosen, Peter, to lead His Church.

As Dr Warren H Carroll in *A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online | Rumble & Carthy
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1

Peter’s tomb has been found. It was found under the altar of St. Peters Basilica in Rome in 1965. The tomb is plainly marked with his name and there are human remains within it. Anyone who visits St. Peters can see the tomb for himself.

Tertullian, “The demurrer against the heretics”, chapter XXXII,1,
“…like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

Eusebius, “History of the Church”, 2,14,6, 300 A.D., J651dd
“In the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others, to Rome."

Eusebius wrote in “The Chronicle” (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D… That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius.

Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only Bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.
thecatholictreasurechest.com/petrom.htm

 

[Thorolfr]

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero…

Peter’s tomb has been found. It was found under the altar of St. Peters Basilica in Rome in 1965. The tomb is plainly marked with his name and there are human remains within it. Anyone who visits St. Peters can see the tomb for himself.

Which historian says that St. Peter went to Rome in 43 AD? As for the tomb:

The grave claimed by the Church to be that of St. Peter lies at the foot of the aedicula beneath the floor. The remains of four individuals and several farm animals were found in this grave.[3] In 1953, after the initial archeological efforts had been completed, another set of bones were found that were said to have been removed without the archeologists’ knowledge from a niche (loculus) in the north side of a wall (the graffiti wall) that abuts the red wall on the right of the aedicula. Subsequent testing indicated that these were the bones of a 60-70-year-old man.[4] Margherita Guarducci argued that these were the remains of St. Peter and that they had been moved into a niche in the graffiti wall from the grave under the aedicula “at the time of Constantine, after the peace of the church” (313).[5] Antonio Ferrua, the archaeologist who headed the excavation that uncovered what is known as St. Peter’s Tomb, said that he wasn’t convinced that the bones that were found were those of St. Peter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter%27s_tomb

What archaeological evidence can you give to substantiate your claim that the tomb was “plainly marked with his name” when it was excavated?

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #82
Which historian says that St. Peter went to Rome in 43 AD?

Dr Warren H Carroll was Chairman of the History Department at Christendom College and has authored six volumes of A History of Christendom, and confirms St Peter’s presence then as quoted.

"Eusebius wrote in *The Chronicle *(Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.”
thecatholictreasurechest.com/petrom.htm

What archaeological evidence can you give to substantiate your claim that the tomb was “plainly marked with his name” when it was excavated?

“In 330, Emperor Constantine, who had legalized Christianity in 313, began building a huge basilica at the grave site to honor the first pope. The builders had to level the land, thereby filling in the necropolis. They purposefully positioned the altar over the burial site of St. Peter. When Pope Julius began construction on the present St. Peter’s Basilica in 1506 to replace the decaying original basilica, the high altar purposefully remained over the burial site.

“Centuries passed. When Pope Pius XI had died, in February 1939, workers started digging a new tomb in the sacred grottoes, the level beneath the main floor of the basilica. They uncovered the necropolis, finding both pagan and Christian mausoleums. Pope Pius XII gave permission to excavate the necropolis including the area under St. Peter’s high altar. The work progressed slowly.

“By 1950, archaeologists concluded they had found the grave of St. Peter. Greek graffiti on an adjacent wall to the tropaion marked the spot: Petros eni, or “Peter is within” (“eni” being a contraction for “eneoti”). Other graffiti asked St. Peter to pray to Christ for deceased people, and others were common Christian symbols, like the alpha and omega, or the chi and rho.

“A variety of bones were also found. One set, which originally had been buried in the earth, were found in a secret marble repository in the graffiti wall. These bones had been wrapped in a purple fabric with gold threads. Were these St. Peter’s bones? In the early 1960s, anthropologists studied the bones. The bones were mostly fragments, with only a few being about 6 inches. They included pieces of the cranium and jaw (including a tooth), vertebrae, pelvis, legs, arms and hands. The anthropologists concluded the bones belonged to a man, between 60 and 70 years of age; about 5 feet, 7 inches tall; and of robust constitution — an apt description of the fisherman, St. Peter. The bones had been discolored by the earth (the same earth as in the grave). The purple and gold thread cloth (dated to the ancient Roman weaving techniques) was an extremely expensive cloth reserved for imperial honors, thereby befitting the first pope.

“Some interesting questions had to be addressed: First, why no feet bones? Since St. Peter was hung upside down as a criminal, he was not entitled to a proper burial. The body of a criminal would have been dumped. The faithful must have bribed the executioners, who simply severed the body from the feet nailed to the cross and gave it to them. Such a practice was not uncommon.

“Second, why were the bones removed from the grave and placed in the secret repository? The brick work of the repository dated to the reign of the Emperor Valerian (253-60). Valerian intensified the persecution of the church. Sealing the bones inside the marble graffiti wall secured them from desecration.

“Third, the Basilica of St. John Lateran, for at least 1,000 years has kept the relic of the skull of St. Peter. Were they of the same bones? When comparison tests were done, the anthropologists concluded nothing in the Lateran reliquary interfered with the Vatican bones. They speculated that the skull had been removed from the rest of the bones to preserve it.

‘Given this evidence, in February 1968, an official report was presented to Pope Paul VI who concluded that the bones had been “identified in a way which we can hold to be convincing.” ‘
catholicstraightanswers.com/church-possess-actual-bones-st-peter/

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;13601992]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.

Actually it is not a nuanced view. The confirming of the truth of scripture by use of Tradition is precisely what sola scriptura does. As an example, read Melanchthon’s writing about the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

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.

It isn’t my equating, it is St. John Chrysostom’s. I took no liberty, as the clear meaning of the words are there. Yes, St. Peter initially received the keys, that cannot and should not be denied. But the keys clearly belong to the whole Church.

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.

You, and I, are considered schismatic by Eastern Orthodoxy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

I did not take it as disrespectful.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;13600204]There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church. It is only led by Peter and his appointed successors. There is not a split within the church. One doctrine, one church, one path of succession from Peter.

Of course there is a split within the one True Church.
The Catholic Catechism:

In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the **unity of Christ’s Body **- here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

There is only one Church, not many churches, and we enter that Church via our baptism. I am as much a part of the one True Church as you are.

I am on the denominations because schism is the result of Protestant doctrine and they all claim to have authority. There’s an inherent conflict in that. There is also an inherent conflict in having 30,000 denominations with conflicting doctrines in Christ’s church.

And if you look at the CCC, 817, you’ll see the words, for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. So to blame only protestants seems to be outside Catholic teaching. Further, I do not claim any authority.

There’s an inherent conflict in claiming Christ started a church that was originated in 16th century Germany

And n o Lutheran claims that.

There’s an inherent conflict in 30,000 denominations all claiming to be led by the Spirit and claiming to have the right path. The old saying is that the Spirit is not schizophrenic.

I think you’re right. Perhaps we should all return to unity with the patriarchates of Eastern Orthodoxy. After all, all of the 240 some odd Catholic churches also claim to be led by the Spirit.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

Perhaps to clear up confusion. The keys belong to the Church, and the Church is the congregation of saints where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. But it is the called and ordained Office of the Public Ministry that is exclusively responsible for preaching the word, granting absolution, baptizing (except in emergencies), presiding over the Eucharist, Confirmation, weddings, funerals, etc.
So, the Church, the congregation of believers, designates the called and ordained to exercise the keys, not the laity.

Jon

 

[Rohzek]

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

Because a professional historian has read the same sources and far more, yet has a different conclusion. It is worth hearing him out. It’s pretty much accepted fact in the historical community that no one accepts that the papacy ever had as much power as hardcore traditionalists like to claim. Most pro-catholic historians only follow Walter Ullmann’s view insofar that it developed over time and was an implicit idea.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Perhaps to clear up confusion. The keys belong to the Church, and the Church is the congregation of saints where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. But it is the called and ordained Office of the Public Ministry that is exclusively responsible for preaching the word, granting absolution, baptizing (except in emergencies), presiding over the Eucharist, Confirmation, weddings, funerals, etc.
So, the Church, the congregation of believers, designates the called and ordained to exercise the keys, not the laity.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Thanks for clearing up our misunderstanding. We are on the same page.

In His Grace

 

[In_His_Grace]

Because a professional historian has read the same sources and far more, yet has a different conclusion. It is worth hearing him out. It’s pretty much accepted fact in the historical community that no one accepts that the papacy ever had as much power as hardcore traditionalists like to claim. Most pro-catholic historians only follow Walter Ullmann’s view insofar that it developed over time and was an implicit idea.

Are Walter Ullmann’s views on the papacy similar to John Henry Newman’s views on the papacy?

Thanks

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13602180]Looking at the context of Mt 18:18

Looking at the wording from Matt. 16:18-19

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And from Matt 18:18

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

In Matthew 16, Christ is speaking directly to St. Peter (some claim he here had turned His attention to all of the Disciples. I see no reason to believe that).
In Matthew 18, Christ is speaking to all of the Disciples, and uses virtually the same words.
It is clear here that the Keys are now shared with all of the Disciples, for all of the Church, for all of history. Peter was the first to receive, but not the only.
And the context of the conversation is The Church.

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.

And in Matt 18, the “you” is plural, for all of the Disciples, all of the Church.

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).

But not only Peter, and the Bishop of Rome.

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.

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

 

[Rohzek]

Are Walter Ullmann’s views on the papacy similar to John Henry Newman’s views on the papacy?

Thanks

I’m not familiar with Newman’s views. Could you perhaps illustrate them in some way?

 

[In_His_Grace]

I’m not familiar with Newman’s views. Could you perhaps illustrate them in some way?

I read Newman’s book, “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” over two years ago, he nearly convinced me to convert to Catholicism.

I’ll let Newman speak for himself…

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman

The Papal Supremacy

In His Grace

 

[steve_b]

Because a professional historian has read the same sources and far more, yet has a different conclusion. It is worth hearing him out. It’s pretty much accepted fact in the historical community that no one accepts that the papacy ever had as much power as hardcore traditionalists like to claim. Most pro-catholic historians only follow Walter Ullmann’s view insofar that it developed over time and was an implicit idea.

All doctrines develop. They develop true to form. The papacy has been here since Jesus gave Peter the keys.

 

[mattp0625]

Actually it is not a nuanced view. The confirming of the truth of scripture by use of Tradition is precisely what sola scriptura does. As an example, read Melanchthon’s writing about the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

It isn’t my equating, it is St. John Chrysostom’s. I took no liberty, as the clear meaning of the words are there. Yes, St. Peter initially received the keys, that cannot and should not be denied. But the keys clearly belong to the whole Church.

You, and I, are considered schismatic by Eastern Orthodoxy.

Jon

Orthodoxy Christianity has several schisms and argue among themselves over succession. I would not use that as the standard.

I read the quote from Chrysostom. It never said anything about all believers having the keys or the Protestant Church. That is a gigantic leap. His writing was talking about John (not all believers) and his writings did take liberties with words. Either way, it does not change the fact that Jesus gave keys to Peter. One man’s writing does not change that fact, nor does it transfer the keys to someone else.

However, Ignatius of Antioch was among the original Christians. He very strongly indicates that schismatics and heretics that do not confess the real presence of the Eucharist are to be avoided and will not inherit the kingdom of God. This is not a church inclusive of all believers with conflicting doctrines and different founders.

 

[In_His_Grace]

All doctrines develop. They develop true to form. The papacy has been here since Jesus gave Peter the keys.

So you agree with Newman Steve?

In His Grace

 

[mattp0625]

Of course there is a split within the one True Church.
The Catholic Catechism:

There is only one Church, not many churches, and we enter that Church via our baptism. I am as much a part of the one True Church as you are.

And if you look at the CCC, 817, you’ll see the words, for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. So to blame only protestants seems to be outside Catholic teaching. Further, I do not claim any authority.

And n o Lutheran claims that.

I think you’re right. Perhaps we should all return to unity with the patriarchates of Eastern Orthodoxy. After all, all of the 240 some odd Catholic churches also claim to be led by the Spirit.

Jon

Luther created his own canon by his own authority. He started a new church under his own authority. He did not have authority from Christ or the Church to do either.

Here is a list of Protestant Churches. They all have different names, different doctrines, and many have different founders:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

There are not 240 Catholic Churches. I have no idea where you get that. There is one succession, one dogma and doctrine, one Catholic Church

There were some groups who broke away that no longer exist. And if they did, they are not part of the Catholic Church.

If you are referring to the Waldensians, yes they started a movement, but retained Catholic dogma and doctrine. Different practices do not make different dogma and doctrine.

 

[Abu]

Rohzek #88
It’s pretty much accepted fact in the historical community that no one accepts that the papacy ever had as much power as hardcore traditionalists like to claim. Most pro-catholic historians only follow Walter Ullmann’s view insofar that it developed over time and was an implicit idea.

Real history is not based on “views” but on facts. There is nothing “implicit” about the reality of Christ’s authorisation of Peter personally with supreme authority as documented here.

In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

That is the reality. About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

When a truth in the Church is challenged, She may deem it necessary to define it as dogma or doctrine. That infallibility conferred by the Christ was challenged by Gallicanism which became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.
catholicculture.org/cult…x.cfm?id=33692

That was why the need for the dogma on papal infallibility became necessary to define the reality instituted by Christ.

 

[JohnR77]

… ‘Given this evidence, in February 1968, an official report was presented to Pope Paul VI who concluded that the bones had been “identified in a way which we can hold to be convincing.” ‘
catholicstraightanswers.com/church-possess-actual-bones-st-peter/

Thanks Abu,
Great response. I linked to this well written article on the page below which also gives additional information about St. Peter’s grave and
John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter.

defendingthebride.com/ss/peter/index.html

.

 

[commenter]

Actually it is not a nuanced view. The confirming of the truth of scripture by** use of Tradition **is precisely what sola scriptura does. As an example, read Melanchthon’s writing about the real presence in the
It isn’t my equating, it is St. John Chrysostom’s. I took no liberty, as the clear meaning of the words are there. Yes, St. Peter initially received the keys, that cannot and should not be denied. But the keys clearly belong to the whole Church.

Jon

In the phrase bolded above, I think it assumes an additional word, as in “defined Tradition”. Followers of Sola Scriptura don’t rely on the vast body of Christian traditions to clarify Scripture. They rely on a tiny subset deemed to be reliable - defined as reliable, or Tradition, by some agent. As in singular agent.