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

[Abu]

Rohzek #114
The only tenable Catholic thesis for the papacy follows the same framework set-up by the pro-catholic historian Walter Ullmann.

False.
As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

Not only does ecumenical mean universal but the fact that the Orthodox choose to limit themselves to 7 Ecumenical Councils merely defines the limitations of their own choosing which extends to Papal primacy and infallibility. Further regressions from doctrine are expressed in the Orthodox rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitting divorce, remarriage and contraception.

 

[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.

Hopefully I’ll find the time today to read the document you sent me. Thanks.

 

[Rohzek]

False.
As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

Not only does ecumenical mean universal but the fact that the Orthodox choose to limit themselves to 7 Ecumenical Councils merely defines the limitations of their own choosing which extends to Papal primacy and infallibility. Further regressions from doctrine are expressed in the Orthodox rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitting divorce, remarriage and contraception.

First, I’m not quoting from an Orthodox source. I’m citing the general consensus of the historical community at large, which was spear-headed by a Roman Catholic historian. Dr. Warren Carroll is an extreme outlier, so much so that historiographies on the field of papal history generally don’t even bother discussing his works because they can’t be taken seriously. Keep in mind that Carroll also defended the burning of heretics as a morally defensible option. Ullmann’s works, on the otherhand, is still one of the standard starting points for papal history.

Neither am I trying to argue against papal primacy here. All I am pointing out is that the most pro-catholic one gets in the field of history is Ullmann’s position on the matter. Some of your fellow Catholics here have no problem with this historical position. And while Ullmann’s position has been criticized and since revised in a number of ways, it remains the only viable pro-catholic historical interpretation of the doctrine of papal primacy.

I honestly wish you would at least read the work I provided at your local library before dismissing me out of hand. If you are even remotely interested in understanding where I am coming from, I would be more than happy to provide you via pm with the work that I cited in one of my previous posts.

 

[Thorolfr]

Keep in mind that Carroll also defended the burning of heretics as a morally defensible option.

You’d be surprised at how many people in CAF think that it’s morally defensible to burn heretics.

 

[commenter]

First, I’m not quoting from an Orthodox source. I’m citing the general consensus of the historical community at large, which was spear-headed by a Roman Catholic historian. Dr. Warren Carroll is an extreme outlier, so much so that historiographies on the field of papal history generally don’t even bother discussing his works because they can’t be taken seriously.

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

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

 

[mattp0625]

This interview describes what Luther was trying to accomplish (consubstantiation instead of transubstantiation) in the Reformation with regard to Eucharist, the Church, and the priesthood.

He turned to ubiquitism to define the real presence of Christ’s body. God is in everything, therefore there is no change in the bread because God is already present in it along with anything else. Therefore, there is no need for a priest or hierarchy or succession in order to perform the consecration of the Eucharist.

This is completely unlike the Catholic Church, and an entirely new development in the 16th century:

Dr. William Marshner: Former Lutheran - The Journey Home Program:
Interesting around minutes 7, 12-14, 18-23,23-28, 29-32, 52-55

youtu.be/hb45iffo3TE

This one is interesting, also:

Dr Robert Louis Wilken: Former Lutheran Minister - The Journey Home Program:

Interesting around minutes 6, 13, 26

youtu.be/UFsu_w8Tq4E

 

[Thorolfr]

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

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

So is Dr. Carroll also in the mainstream of Catholic historians in believing that the burning of heretics is a morally defensible option?

 

[Thorolfr]

This interview describes what Luther was trying to accomplish (consubstantiation instead of transubstantiation) in the Reformation with regard to Eucharist, the Church, and the priesthood.

He turned to ubiquitism to define the real presence of Christ’s body. God is in everything, therefore there is no change in the bread because God is already present in it along with anything else. Therefore, there is no need for a priest or hierarchy or succession in order to perform the consecration of the Eucharist.

This is completely unlike the Catholic Church, and an entirely new development in the 16th century:

Dr. William Marshner: Former Lutheran - The Journey Home Program:
Interesting around minutes 7, 12-14, 18-23,23-28, 29-32, 52-55

youtu.be/hb45iffo3TE

Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation but rather in sacramental union.

This view is sometimes erroneously identified as consubstantiation in that it asserts the simultaneous presence of four essences in the Eucharist: that of the consecrated bread, the body of Christ, the consecrated wine, and the blood of Christ; but it differs in that it does not assert a “local” (three-dimensional, circumscribed) presence of the body and blood in the sacramental bread and wine respectively, which is rejected as “gross, carnal, and Capernaitic” in the Formula of Concord.[7] The term “consubstantiation” has been associated with such a “local” inclusion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine as has the term “impanation.” Lutherans have also rejected the designation of their position as consubstantiation because they believe it, like transubstantiation, is a philosophical explanation of the Real Presence, whereas the sacramental union provides a description of the Real Presence.

Martin Luther distinguished this doctrine from that of transubstantiation and impanation in this way:

"… we do not make Christ’s body out of the bread … Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, “This is my body.” For Christ commands us to say not, “Let this become my body,” or, “Make my body there,” but, “This is my body.”[8]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

 

[mattp0625]

Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation but rather in sacramental union.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

Yes maybe I used the wrong term, I can’t account for all the nuances of sub- denominations.
What I can tell you is that it’s a very new development and makes the Eucharist no different than any common food

 

[JonNC]

This interview describes what Luther was trying to accomplish (consubstantiation instead of transubstantiation) in the Reformation with regard to Eucharist, the Church, and the priesthood.

He turned to ubiquitism to define the real presence of Christ’s body. God is in everything, therefore there is no change in the bread because God is already present in it along with anything else. Therefore, there is no need for a priest or hierarchy or succession in order to perform the consecration of the Eucharist.

This is completely unlike the Catholic Church, and an entirely new development in the 16th century:

Dr. William Marshner: Former Lutheran - The Journey Home Program:
Interesting around minutes 7, 12-14, 18-23,23-28, 29-32, 52-55

I have no idea how this applies to the topic of the thread, but in addition Thorolfr’s response, here is a small sampling of Lutheran theologians over the centuries on the false accusation that we teach consubstantiation.

John Gerhard: “On account of the calumnies of our adversaries, we would note that we do not believe in impanation, nor in consubstantiation, nor in any physical or local presence.”
“We believe in no consubstantiative presence of the body and blood. Far from us be that figment. The heavenly thing and the Earthly thing in the Lord’s Supper are not present with each other physically and naturally.​

Andrew Osiander: “Our theologians for years long have strenuously denied and powerfully confuted the doctrine of a local inclusion, or physical connection of the body and bread, or consubstantiation. We believe in no impanation, subpanation, companation, or consubstantiation of the body of Christ; no physical or local inclusion or conjoining of bread and body, as our adversaries, in manifest calumnies, allege against us.

---

Krauth: Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts. In the “Wittenberg Concord,” (1536,) prepared and signed by Luther and the other great leaders in the Church, it is said: “We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally included in the bread.” …The manduction is not a thing of the senses or of reason, but supernatural, mysterious, and incomprehensible. The presence of Christ in the supper is not of a physical nature, nor earthly, nor Capernaitish, and yet it is most true.”

---

Sasse: It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say."

Not Luther, nor Chemnitz, in fact none of the great Lutheran theologians ever described or acknowledges Lutheran teaching to be consubstantiation. If the gentleman somewhere in the video states that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, then he was either poorly catechized, or he had a reason for not representing what virtually all Lutheran theologians have believed, taught, and confessed.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

I have no idea how this applies to the topic of the thread, but in addition Thorolfr’s response, here is a small sampling of Lutheran theologians over the centuries on the false accusation that we teach consubstantiation.

John Gerhard: “On account of the calumnies of our adversaries, we would note that we do not believe in impanation, nor in consubstantiation, nor in any physical or local presence.”
“We believe in no consubstantiative presence of the body and blood. Far from us be that figment. The heavenly thing and the Earthly thing in the Lord’s Supper are not present with each other physically and naturally.​

Andrew Osiander: “Our theologians for years long have strenuously denied and powerfully confuted the doctrine of a local inclusion, or physical connection of the body and bread, or consubstantiation. We believe in no impanation, subpanation, companation, or consubstantiation of the body of Christ; no physical or local inclusion or conjoining of bread and body, as our adversaries, in manifest calumnies, allege against us.

---

Krauth: Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts. In the “Wittenberg Concord,” (1536,) prepared and signed by Luther and the other great leaders in the Church, it is said: “We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally included in the bread.” …The manduction is not a thing of the senses or of reason, but supernatural, mysterious, and incomprehensible. The presence of Christ in the supper is not of a physical nature, nor earthly, nor Capernaitish, and yet it is most true.”

---

Sasse: It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say."

Not Luther, nor Chemnitz, in fact none of the great Lutheran theologians ever described or acknowledges Lutheran teaching to be consubstantiation. If the gentleman somewhere in the video states that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, then he was either poorly catechized, or he had a reason for not representing what virtually all Lutheran theologians have believed, taught, and confessed.

Jon

It applies in several ways. It’s clear Luther was trying to create a Eucharist without the priesthood, and created his own brand new doctrine to do it.

The following summarizes the disagreement in Lutheran terminology:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism

It does not have any likeness to the apostles or the Catholic Church

 

[JonNC]

It applies in several ways. It’s clear Luther was trying to create a Eucharist without the priesthood, and created his own brand new doctrine to do it.

The following summarizes the disagreement in Lutheran terminology:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_in_Lutheranism

It does not have any likeness to the apostles or the Catholic Church

Again, not true.

“If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers.”

• Luther

And from the Lutheran / Catholic Joint Commission

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Bolding is mine.

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

Jon

 

[Abu]

Lutheranism and Transubstantiation
by Peter J. Riga
Excerpt:
“The logical explanation of Scripture is, indeed, the basis of Biblical theology and not at all foreign to Lutheran theologians. The realization that Trent was only presenting such an explanation of the words of institution and not binding itself to a particular philosophical system might well dispose many Lutherans to accept the dogma of transubstantiation. But even if Lutherans were to accept this dogma as a logical explanation of Christ’s words, there yet exists a profound difference between Lutherans and Catholics on the point at issue. As Rahner points out, for the Catholic a logical explanation can become a proposition which binds the faith of the individual by reason of the Church’s teaching, while for the Lutheran it remains basically theological and therefore revisable.40

“In short, the problem reduces itself to a question of the Church’s ability to demand the consent of faith concerning a logical explanation of Scripture. This, of course, remains an abiding barrier between Lutherans and Catholics.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013

 

[Thorolfr]

It does not have any likeness to the apostles or the Catholic Church

Just out of curiosity, which of the apostles ever talked about transubstantiation?

 

[mattp0625]

Just out of curiosity, which of the apostles ever talked about transubstantiation?

They didn’t use the same word, but the same concept. Ignatius of Antioch and other father’s learned from the apostles

 

[mattp0625]

Again, not true.

• Luther

And from the Lutheran / Catholic Joint Commission

Bolding is mine.

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

Jon

Luther clearly made new doctrines to attempt to reproduce the Eucharist. They don’t have ordained priests or apostolic succession. Brand new doctrines in the 16th century

 

[JonNC]

Luther clearly made new doctrines to attempt to reproduce the Eucharist. They don’t have ordained priests or apostolic succession. Brand new doctrines in the 16th century

So, you disagree with Catholic theologians on the matter of the Eucharist. And what you think of Lutheran ordination is irrelevant. The fact is the are significant numbers of Lutheran clergy that do have AS.
But these, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the topic.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

So, you disagree with Catholic theologians on the matter of the Eucharist. And what you think of Lutheran ordination is irrelevant. The fact is the are significant numbers of Lutheran clergy that do have AS.
But these, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the topic.

Jon

It’s not possible to be in the Lutheran Church and have apostolic succession unless you believe the doctrines that Luther invented in the 16th century

I am not concerned which theologians disagree with Ignatius and others. Ignatius was clear.

You can’t come to the party 1,500 years later and appoint yourself to make things up as you go

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;13609511]It’s not possible to be in the Lutheran Church and have apostolic succession unless you believe the doctrines that Luther invented in the 16th century

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

I don’t care which theologians disagree with Ignatius

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

You can’t come to the party 1,500 years later and appoint yourself to make things up as you go

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

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Your interpretation contradicts Luke 22,

on the contrary #153
Jesus is NOT taking authority away or diminishing authority that Peter has been given.

Consider the following. After the resurrection

When Peter wants to go back to his former life (fishing) John 21:3 what happens next? John 21:4-14, then Jesus singles out Peter from the others AGAIN John 21:15-17 because Jesus has made him THE leader over ALL. In this exchange, the 2nd time ( Jn 21:16) Jesus asks Peter do you love me, what does Jesus say to Peter? Tend ( ποίμαινε , Poimaino) my sheep.

definition:
ποίμαινε = shepherd, tend, herd; (hence: I rule, govern.)

When that word ποίμαινε was used for Jesus Rev 19:14 “and he will rule ποίμαινε them with a rod of iron”;
J:

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.

Jesus absolutely says one of them is greatest. #153
J:

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.

No keys mentioned. Those went to Peter
J:

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.

That takes nothing away from Peter. See my opening comments from Jn 21
J:

Paul stands up to Peter in Galatians 2,

From St Jerome’s conversation with Augustine on this subject

#15
J:

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

There are qualificaations

On a practicle note, Re: keys
**we need to reflect on the significance of what a lock does. For example, if everyone had keys to a given lock then that lock would serve absolutely no purpose at all. It would keep no one out. A lock only has value because only one key works. Only one particular key (or set of duplicate keys,) out of the whole range of different possibilities of possible keys, can open that given lock. Therefore, whoever holds the keys to a given lock has the UNIQUE position of being able to open that lock.

for example:

**Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws.

Example

Isaiah 22:22

There is a hierarchy of authority.