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

[In_His_Grace]

bump for Steve

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

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

Lutherans also confess the Real Presence, but many people in this forum still consider them schismatics and heretics…

 

[Thorolfr]

Luther created his own canon by his own authority.

What other canon did Luther create? His translation of the Bible includes all of the same 27 books in the New Testament as most other Christians.

 

[mattp0625]

Lutherans also confess the Real Presence, but many people in this forum still consider them schismatics and heretics…

Ignatius did not include all believers in the Catholic Church.
He was there from the very beginning.

Luther did not have authority to consecrate the Eucharist after his schism.

 

[mattp0625]

What other canon did Luther create? His translation of the Bible includes all of the same 27 books in the New Testament as most other Christians.

After 1,200 years of consistent canon, he decided the seven books were not inspired. He had no authority to do so.

He also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, and Revelation. (It’s not difficult to see why)

 

[Thorolfr]

After 1,200 years of consistent canon, he decided the seven books were not inspired. He had no authority to do so.

He also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, and Revelation. (It’s not difficult to see why)

Are you talking about the same James of which Luther said, “I praise James and hold it to be a good writing because it does propose human teachings but drives God’s law hard.”

bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/what-did-martin-luther-mean-when-he-called-the-book-of-james-a-real-strawy-epistle/

 

[mattp0625]

Are you talking about the same James of which Luther said, “I praise James and hold it to be a good writing because it does propose human teachings but drives God’s law hard.”

bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/what-did-martin-luther-mean-when-he-called-the-book-of-james-a-real-strawy-epistle/

Protestant historians often like to revise things:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]

“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times”. [6] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon”.[7]

In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical.[8] In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.

However, Ryrie’s theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that** Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: “I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. …I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship.”**[9]

 

[Thorolfr]

Protestant historians often like to revise things:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]

“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times”. [6] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon”.[7]

In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical.[8] In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.

However, Ryrie’s theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: “I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. …I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship.”[9]

I actually agree with Luther that all the books of the Bible are not of equal value. Some of them are better and more important than others.

 

[steve_b]

In Matthew 18, Christ is speaking to all of the Disciples, and uses virtually the same words.

What’s missing? In Mt 18 keys aren’t mentioned. And in order to bind and loose in that context of ch 18, it takes 2 or 3 of them to make a decision.

In Mt 16, Peter alone gets the keys. He can bind and loose by himself. There were no restrictions laid on Peter that requires others to be involved before he can exercise the authority of the keys.

Peter is the leader over the apostles. There are not 12 leaders of equal authority.

Acts, shows this difference in action,

**“1. **When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew 16:15-19).
**2. **When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18. Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council.
**3. **Notice the nature of the letter sent out by the Church. When the Council of Jerusalem sends out the decree, the Church declares:
It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell. (Acts 15:28, NAB)
As St. Paul and Silas traveled about delivering the decree of the Church, the Scripture records:
As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
Catholic trivia point:
The Greek word for decisions there is “dogmata” in Greek.
One Final Note:
When St. Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch (this was where the trouble started according to Acts 14:26-15:2) immediately after the Council and delivered the teachings, the people “were delighted with the exhortation” (see Acts 15:30-31). The dispute was settled. However, not everyone was obedient. Judging from the letters of St. Paul to the Galatians and Romans, and the letter to the Hebrews, we can clearly see that there were rebels then just as there are now who will not listen to the Church.
St Irenaeus gives us some interesting insight as to one problem person who would not obey the Church. He was the seventh deacon who is listed among the first deacons ordained in Acts 6:5. You’ll notice that among the seven, he is listed last. According to St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, Bk. 1, ch. 26, para. 3, he was one of the leaders of the rebellion against the Council. Scripture records Nicolas the deacon was a “convert from Antioch.” Antioch is where all the trouble started.
The final point I want to make here is that Jesus himself has very strong words for these Nicolaitanes! These were basically anti-nomians who thought they did not have to obey the laws of the Church. When Jesus gives a personal message to St. John in the beginning of the Book of Revelation, he has a special message for those who would disobey the Church.
Remember then from what you [the church in Ephesus] have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate (Rev. 2:5-6).
I have a few things against you [the church in Pergamum]: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth (Rev. 2:14-16).
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be on the side of folks whose deeds are “hated” by the Lord. I will remain on the side of the Church!
If you want to remain on the side of the Church, you must remain with the Vicar of Christ, St. Peter, and his successors the Popes.”
From: Who Was at the Helm in the Book of Acts? Peter? James?
J:

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.

That’s NOT how the keys are given.

If EVERYONE gets the keys no one is in charge. In Is 22:22…] only one person got the keys. In Mt 16 only one person got the keys. .

check out Power of the Keys
J:

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

Not so, Look over what Irenaeus said #76

 

[mattp0625]

I actually agree with Luther that all the books of the Bible are not of equal value. Some of them are better and more important than others.

Yes, that is characteristic of most Protestant denominations.

Many denominations think Romans 3 is the heart of the bible.

Many hold Paul’s epistles higher than the gospels themselves.

When you have books of the bible which state faith without works is dead, or showing the spirits of the saints are in heaven (not on the last day), or discussing the order of a priesthood, it is not difficult to see why certain parts of the bible are downplayed.

This former Protestant, with a PhD, attests to Protestant Churches that downplay parts of the bible that do not support their beliefs:

youtu.be/mYSp9Q3CsEU

 

[steve_b]

So you agree with Newman Steve?

In His Grace

I think this is your question

Can Dogma Develop? also covers doctrine

 

[In_His_Grace]

I think this is your question

Can Dogma Develop? also covers doctrine

I’ll read the link you provided tomorrow before I comment. Thanks Steve.

In His Grace

 

[JonNC]

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.

I think it depends on the communion or tradition within the Church. Some more, some less.

Jon

 

[Rohzek]

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.

I suggest instead of citing tired old apologetics, you read work by serious historians. Begin with the following:

Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1995), 505-540.

I won’t go into the details, but it adheres to the basic premises that I have laid out. The only tenable Catholic thesis for the papacy follows the same framework set-up by the pro-catholic historian Walter Ullmann.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13606346]What’s missing? In Mt 18 keys aren’t mentioned. And in order to bind and loose in that context of ch 18, it takes 2 or 3 of them to make a decision.

In Mt 16, Peter alone gets the keys. He can bind and loose by himself. There were no restrictions laid on Peter that requires others to be involved before he can exercise the authority of the keys.

Peter is the leader over the apostles. There are not 12 leaders of equal authority.

Your interpretation contradicts Luke 22,

And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. 25And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. 26But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. 27For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth:

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.

Acts, shows this difference in action,

**“1. **When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew 16:15-19).
**2. **When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18. Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council.

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.

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

 

[Rohzek]

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

In general the two views are similar, but Ullmann is much more detailed and goes over the papacy throughout the Middle Ages. I’ll pm you a very good historiography on this field of history that discusses Ullmann’s work.

 

[mattp0625]

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.

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.

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

Sending out the apostles to preach and spread the church is not the same thing as giving them the keys.

Any ordained priest can perform the consecration or perform absolution. That does not make them the leader of the Church.

All these gyrations still do not transfer the keys.

 

[JonNC]

Sending out the apostles to preach and spread the church is not the same thing as giving them the keys.

Any ordained priest can perform the consecration or perform absolution. That does not make them the leader of the Church.

All these gyrations still do not transfer the keys.

It is inherent in the Keys, this granting of Absolution. That is why Christ speaks of them in conjunction with their being sent. The keys are not about a specific leader, and certainly not about a private ownership of those key by one apostle and his one set of successors.
The keys are not transferred from Peter to the others, as if they are his personal property to transfer. Christs grants them the keys as well, and there by, to His Church.

Jon

 

[commenter]

It is inherent in the Keys, this granting of Absolution. That is why Christ speaks of them in conjunction with their being sent. The keys are not about a specific leader, and certainly not about a private ownership of those key by one apostle and his **one set of successors.
**The keys are not transferred from Peter to the others, as if they are his personal property to transfer. Christs grants them the keys as well, and there by, to His Church.

Jon

All Christians are “sent” to live and share the Faith. Some Christians are also authorized to grant absolution, and consecrate, in the Faith. But what visible human guides that Faith in a given generation, humanly speaking? In the gospels, did Jesus train up various groups of apostles? Not at all, it was one united group of disciples. Did Jesus grant the Keys to the 5000, or to the 120? No.

Jesus did grant some authority to all 12 apostles; some different authority to the 120; and some different authority to all his followers. Did that mean he granted to all his followers, or to all apostles, “the keys”? Of course not. Even if I grant your argument part way, that Jesus granted the keys to all apostles in unity with the college where Peter is, that would mean only one college of bishops today would have the keys; not different colleges of bishops. In other words, it would exclude other denominations from full benefit from the Keys.

If Jesus had intended more than one set of successors, he likely would have trained more than one set of apostles. The Keys were not Peter’s personal property, his responsibility with the Keys ended with his death. Other individuals, one at a time, took up that responsibility. When Benedict resigned, he left Rome for the papal election. He did not choose the successor to the keys, because they were never his private property.

Once we grant that the authority of the keys is plural and spread, where and how do we draw the line where the keys are not? Do we say this denomination is “in the keys”, and the Mormons, for instance, are “outside the keys”? Who makes that call? If you say the Keys are everywhere the gospel is preached truly, who decides what is “truly”?

 

[mattp0625]

It is inherent in the Keys, this granting of Absolution. That is why Christ speaks of them in conjunction with their being sent. The keys are not about a specific leader, and certainly not about a private ownership of those key by one apostle and his one set of successors.
The keys are not transferred from Peter to the others, as if they are his personal property to transfer. Christs grants them the keys as well, and there by, to His Church.

Jon

There is still no proof of Christ granting keys to anyone except Peter. There is still not a transfer either.

Additionally, the apostles do not have any link to Luther. They has dissimilar theology, there’s no succession to Luther, and lived 1,500 years apart. They clearly did not take kindly to schismatics.
Honestly, there’s no basis to these linkages.