How were the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" passed from Peter to his sucsessor?

[paarsurrey]

It is clear that Christ chose Peter to lead His Church here on earth after His death and ascension into Heaven. Peter was also promised the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” which I understand to be the authority to lead the Church. (see Mat 16:18,19).

Hi

I think it is a misconception. This was prior to the event of crucifixion, when Simon Bar-Jona scandalized in him, he lost all the entitlements of keys of heaven. Then, Jesus did not trust in him, it is for this that when Jesus departed from Galilee he took along Mary and some trusted disciples but he left Peter behind.

Thanks

 

[Hilde89]

How does proving the primacy of Peter, and his infallibillity prove that the current poope has the same?

 

[Lehl]

About your inference (or I should say accusation) of a “questionable transference of prophethood” in the early history of our church. There was nothing shady or questionable in the way the Keys of the Priesthood passed from Joseph Smith to Brigham Young. It was understood by Joseph Smith and the Apostles (as it was, in my opinion, understood by Peter and the Apostles of old) that the keys were held by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. When Joseph was murdered leadership of the church immediately passed to the Apostles who already had the proper authority. Brigham Young, as senior Apostle, took charge and was later confirmed by the Apostles and sustained by the membership of the church as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator and President of the Church. This same pattern has been followed ever since as we saw a week or so ago with the passing of President Hinckley.

There absolutely was a shady and questionable succession of Brigham Young. It caused several major permanent schisms within your church!

Does “RLDS” ring a bell? What about Sidney Rigdon’s “The Church of Jesus Christ”? James Strang?

I think it is a devastating blow to the LDS that Joseph Smith’s legal wife Emma didn’t even follow Brigham Young after Joseph’s death. She joined the RLDS with two of their sons. Why was a large part of Joseph Smith’s immediate family led astray?

Brigham Young seemed to have campaigned his way into the position. He changed the intended line of succession.

Certainly Brigham Young was A senior apostle, but not THE senior apostle. Sidney Rigdon was the remaining member of the First Presidency and OBVIOUSLY had seniority over Brigham Young as we all know.

This would be equivalent back in the day of Boyd K. Packer, the current (and prior to Hinckley’s death) President of the Quorum of the 12 becoming “prophet” before Thomas S. Monson. Monson was a member of the First Presidency AND more importantly, had seniority over Boyd K. Packer.

After Joseph’s death, Brigham Young actually proposed that the “Quorum of the Twelve be named the church’s leadership” (it wasn’t already “understood” as you stated). The church members then VOTED on whether or not to accept the Twelve as the new guardians over the church. The majority voted in favor of the Twelve to Brigham Young’s benefit.

Seriously, why would God allow his just-barely “one true” RESTORED church to be fractured like that?

Talk about an apostasy!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Hi

I think it is a misconception. This was prior to the event of crucifixion, when Simon Bar-Jona scandalized in him, he lost all the entitlements of keys of heaven. Then, Jesus did not trust in him, it is for this that when Jesus departed from Galilee he took along Mary and some trusted disciples but he left Peter behind.

Thanks

You are mistaken. The idea of “keys” is that the person has the king’s authority when the king is not present. Jesus never took the authority from Peter and gave it to someone else. Peter was there at the last supper, with Jesus in the garden, and was one of the first witnesses to the resurrection. After the resurrection, Jesus told Peter to “feed my sheep”. This was a confirmation that he still had the “keys”. He would be the shepherd of the church.

Jesus did not have to ‘trust’ in Peter, He knew Peter well. He knew that both Peter and Judas would betray Him in different ways but that Peter would repent and be made stronger. He knew that Peter would love Him even more than before, He had said that the one who was forgiven much loves much.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Hi

I think it is a misconception. This was prior to the event of crucifixion, when Simon Bar-Jona scandalized in him, he lost all the entitlements of keys of heaven. Then, Jesus did not trust in him, it is for this that when Jesus departed from Galilee he took along Mary and some trusted disciples but he left Peter behind.

Thanks

You are in error. The idea of “keys” is that the person has the king’s authority when the king is not present. Jesus never took the authority from Peter and gave it to someone else. Peter was there at the last supper, with Jesus in the garden, and was one of the first witnesses to the resurrection. After the resurrection, Jesus told Peter to “feed my sheep”. This was a confirmation that he still had the “keys”. He would be the shepherd of the church.

Jesus did not have to ‘trust’ in Peter, He knew Peter well. He knew that both Peter and Judas would betray Him in different ways but that Peter would repent and be made stronger. He knew that Peter would love Him even more than before, He had said that the one who was forgiven much loves much.

 

[BCPoulsen]

You are in error. The idea of “keys” is that the person has the king’s authority when the king is not present. Jesus never took the authority from Peter and gave it to someone else. Peter was there at the last supper, with Jesus in the garden, and was one of the first witnesses to the resurrection. After the resurrection, Jesus told Peter to “feed my sheep”. This was a confirmation that he still had the “keys”. He would be the shepherd of the church.

Jesus did not have to ‘trust’ in Peter, He knew Peter well. He knew that both Peter and Judas would betray Him in different ways but that Peter would repent and be made stronger. He knew that Peter would love Him even more than before, He had said that the one who was forgiven much loves much.

Good post. Just one correction. Peter never did betray the Lord, he denied that he knew Him or that he had been with Him but he did not betray Him.

 

[BCPoulsen]

This just refers to their ordinations as bishops, NOT their ordination as the Bishop of Rome.

That I understand but it does not explain how someone who died before Peter succeeded Peter. Unless Peter retired, but that doesn’t fit either because Peter ordained Clemens “after Linus’ death” indicating that Peter was still active in the ministry at the time.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Hi

I think it is a misconception. This was prior to the event of crucifixion, when Simon Bar-Jona scandalized in him, he lost all the entitlements of keys of heaven. Then, Jesus did not trust in him, it is for this that when Jesus departed from Galilee he took along Mary and some trusted disciples but he left Peter behind.

Thanks

Thank you for your interpretation. Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll find any writings from early church leaders who would agree with you. So, you’re probably wrong.

 

[BCPoulsen]

There absolutely was a shady and questionable succession of Brigham Young. It caused several major permanent schisms within your church!

Does “RLDS” ring a bell? What about Sidney Rigdon’s “The Church of Jesus Christ”? James Strang?

I think it is a devastating blow to the LDS that Joseph Smith’s legal wife Emma didn’t even follow Brigham Young after Joseph’s death. She joined the RLDS with two of their sons. Why was a large part of Joseph Smith’s immediate family led astray?

Brigham Young seemed to have campaigned his way into the position. He changed the intended line of succession.

Certainly Brigham Young was A senior apostle, but not THE senior apostle. Sidney Rigdon was the remaining member of the First Presidency and OBVIOUSLY had seniority over Brigham Young as we all know.

This would be equivalent back in the day of Boyd K. Packer, the current (and prior to Hinckley’s death) President of the Quorum of the 12 becoming “prophet” before Thomas S. Monson. Monson was a member of the First Presidency AND more importantly, had seniority over Boyd K. Packer.

After Joseph’s death, Brigham Young actually proposed that the “Quorum of the Twelve be named the church’s leadership” (it wasn’t already “understood” as you stated). The church members then VOTED on whether or not to accept the Twelve as the new guardians over the church. The majority voted in favor of the Twelve to Brigham Young’s benefit.

Seriously, why would God allow his just-barely “one true” RESTORED church to be fractured like that?

Talk about an apostasy!

You really should have you facts right before you make such allegations. I’ll help you out. First let’s look at church organization as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants and the teachings of Joseph Smith. These principles were known by the church at the time of Joseph Smith’s death. Then we’ll discuss the specific points of your argument.

• Each member of the Council of The Twelve Apostles is called and ordained to holds the keys of the priesthood. they have the authority and responsibility to govern the Church, to administer its ordinances, to expound its doctrine.
• The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are equal in authority and power. The Apostles had the same athority as Joseph Smith.
• A Presidency does not exist without a President. When the President of the Church dies, the quorum of the First Presidency is automatically dissolved. Joseph Smiths counselors had not been members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In our day, since the counselors are selected from the Quorum of the Twelve, the counselors return to their respective places of seniority in that quorum

It’s true that membership of the church was in disarray with the death of the Prophet, but Brigham Young Knew that the Authority and the Responsibillity to lead the church rested upon him the other Apostles. They had recently been told by Joseph Smith that they should prepare, said he, “the Lord is about to lay the burden on your shoulders and let me rest awhile; and if they kill me … the kingdom of God will roll on, as I have now finished the work which was laid upon me, by committing to you all things for the building up of the kingdom according to the heavenly vision, and the pattern shown me from heaven.”

 

[Righteousone]

Haha, I think it’s funny how people have listed all the popes in succession with an unbroken link and people STILL question…the thread should of ended with the last pope…

 

[BCPoulsen]

You say that Brigham Young “campaigned his way into the position”. That couldn’t be futher from the truth. When Sidney Rigdon made his case, Brigham listened and after he was through Brigham said "I do not care who leads the church , but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it.” Brigham knew that he was the one who had the responsibilty to determine how the Lord would have the church go forward since he was the President of the Quorrum of the Twelve. He took the matter to the Lord and the next day he made the following statement:

“Their has been much said about President Rigdon being president of the Church leading the People, being the head, &c. If the People want President Rigdon to lead them, they may have him. But I say unto you that the quorum of The Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world. They stand next to Joseph and are the Presidency of the Church, and hold the keys and would have to ordain any man unto that appointment that should be Chosen, ie. if one was to be chosen. You Cannot appoint any man at our head. We should have to ordain him. You Cannot appoint a man at our head. But if you want any other man to lead you, take him, and we will go our way to build up the kingdom in all the world.
“… But who is the head? The Twelve. If one Thousand rise up and say they have the Prophets Joseph shoes I know they are impostures. … Now If you want Rigdon Lyman or Law to lead you or any body else, you may have them. But I tel you in the name of the Lord, that no man Can put another between the Twelve and the Prophet Joseph. Why? Because Joseph was their file leader and he has Committed into there hands the keys of the kingdom for all the world. Dont put a thread between the Priesthood and God.”

Brigham Young was not campaigning to be the next Prophet, he was fulfilling the mandate given him by the Lord when He told him: “I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council;
“Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.” (D&C 124:127–28.)

You said that Sidney Rigdon was a more senior Apostle than than Brigham Young. I don’t know where you got that. Sidney Rigdon was not even an Apostle. Your comparison of Boyd K. Packer to Brigham Young further shows that you have you facts completely fouled up. Elder Packer was not the President of the Quorrum of the Twelve at the time of President Hinckley’s death. He was the acting President. President Monson was the most senior Apostle and was the President of the Quorrum ot the Twelve. Since President Monson had been called to be a counselor to President Hinckley, Elder Packer temporarally filled his chair since he was second in seniority. With the death of President Hinckley, President Monson took his rightful place as President of the Quorrum of the Twelve and, just like Brigham Young, he shouldered the responsibility to ensure the Kingdom of God rolls forth. If President Monson were to die today, it wouldn’t be his first counselor that became President, it would be President Boyd K.Packer who is now the President of the Quorrum of the Twelve. In fact President Eyring (the first counselor) is toward the end of the seniority list.

 

[Genesis315]

The Pope essentially chooses his successor–it, however, is usually indirect and he doesn’t know who the successor will end up being–for example, nowadays, the Pope either lays down new laws or retains previous laws that lay down who is successor will be (ie, the Catholic male who receives 2/3 of the vote of Cardinals under the age of 80 during a conclave to be held 9 days after the see becoming vacant).

Notice, he essentially says “my successor will be the one who meets these conditions” but in the early Church, he may have done this directly or employed different rules (such as the members of the Church in Rome will elect a successor).

 

[BCPoulsen]

The Pope essentially chooses his successor–it, however, is usually indirect and he doesn’t know who the successor will end up being–for example, nowadays, the Pope either lays down new laws or retains previous laws that lay down who is successor will be (ie, the Catholic male who receives 2/3 of the vote of Cardinals under the age of 80 during a conclave to be held 9 days after the see becoming vacant).

Notice, he essentially says “my successor will be the one who meets these conditions” but in the early Church, he may have done this directly or employed different rules (such as the members of the Church in Rome will elect a successor).

Thanks for the explanation. This post and an early post by PaulDupre about “college of bishops” helps answer the first part of my original question, “how the keys were passed”. A couple of questions still remain however:

• How did the authority of the office Bishop become the authority to govern the entire church? The writings of the Apostles suggest that Bishops were called to watch over local branches of the church,
• How did one branch of the Church become the Universal Church. We know from documentation already seen in this thread that there were at least 20 Bishops of various parishes when Peter was still alive. Each properly ordained as Peter verified, and each with with the same authority to serve in God’s Church, but nowhere that I’ve seen did Peter or any of the other the Apostles indicated that a Bishop had been given the Keys to lead the entire Church. Each of those Bishops could trace their authority back to Christ, but that doesn’t mean that any of them had the “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Haha, I think it’s funny how people have listed all the popes in succession with an unbroken link and people STILL question…the thread should of ended with the last pope…

I can post my unbroken succession of St. Peter at Antioch. Your point?

I still have the question, since the dogma of infallibility claims a special charism, why is there no sacrament conferring it? How come a priest cannot ordain a bishop, but a bishop can ordain a pope?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I can post my unbroken succession of St. Peter at Antioch. Your point?

I still have the question, since the dogma of infallibility claims a special charism, why is there no sacrament conferring it? How come a priest cannot ordain a bishop, but a bishop can ordain a pope?

A pope is not ‘ordained’, he is elected. The fullness of the sacrament of holy orders is the ordination of a bishop. The gift of infallibility which protects the pope from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals is a charism. Charisms are not conferred by sacraments; they are gifts of the Holy Spirit who gives them for the good of the church.

 

[1234]

It is clear that Christ chose Peter to lead His Church here on earth after His death and ascension into Heaven. Peter was also promised the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” which I understand to be the authority to lead the Church. (see Mat 16:18,19).

I’ve been curious how those keys were passed and to whom they were passed. I’ve searched the Catholic Answers Library and found information about the importance of Apostolic Succession, but it was not explained how or to whom those keys were passed in the early church.

We read in the New Testament that authority was given to various people to serve in the Church and even to lead units of the church but I’ve not been able to find a reference where these keys to lead the whole Church where pasted from Peter to another.

If anyone can enlighten me on this I’d appreciate it.

I have always thought it odd that Jesus, in conferring such an important office on Simon bar Jonah, chose a Greek name for him, Peter, and used a pun on the Greek meaning of that name, referring to Peter, as petros means ‘rock’ in Greek.

Jesus was a Jew and spoke Aramaic. I doubt if he was fluent in Greek and that he would have given Simon a Greek name, punning on its Greek meaning as he did so.

The obvious conclusion is that the passage was written long after the early Christians had given up on the Jews, were writing in Greek (all the gospels are in Greek) for their Greek converts, and Peter has assumed leadership of the early new religion. There is nothing about this passage which suggests that Jesus ever spoke it in the manner that it has survived.

 

[TOmNossor]

It is clear that Christ chose Peter to lead His Church here on earth after His death and ascension into Heaven. Peter was also promised the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” which I understand to be the authority to lead the Church. (see Mat 16:18,19).

I’ve been curious how those keys were passed and to whom they were passed. I’ve searched the Catholic Answers Library and found information about the importance of Apostalic Succession, but it was not explained how or to whom those keys were passed in the early church.

We read in the New Testament that authority was given to various people to serve in the Church and even to lead units of the church but I’ve not been able to find a reference where these keys to lead the whole Church where pasted from Peter to another.

If anyone can enlighten me on this I’d appreciate it.

I am pretty sure I recognize you some. If I remember correctly you probably are not opposed to reading a little.
I think 2 books are very interesting and perhaps a 3rd would incorporate even more info.

From some lectures Nibley gave the book Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity was compiled. Nibley breaks his book into two sections. The first deals with the difference and co-existence of Bishops and Apostles in the early church. Nibley clearly makes some assumptions about what the data tells us, but he presents a good amount of data and a reasonable position. The second part of the book focuses primarily on Rome to show that the Bishop of Rome was not prime in the sense that Roman Catholics claim today.
In parallel with Nibley’s book, I would recommend reading From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopate in Early Church by Catholic priest Francis Sullivan. Father Sullivan presents much of the same data Nibley does and argues that most (all) local churches were originally established by apostles / co-workers of the apostles and led by GROUPS of presbyters. Over time this structure DEVELOPED into the monoepiscopate present in the Catholic Church today. It is interesting that Rome was one of the latest to move from a group of presbyter’s to a singular Bishop some time probably in the middle of the 2nd century according to Father Sullivan.
Finally, Robert Eno (a Catholic scholar) in The Rise of the Papacy parallels some of the evidence of the second part of Nibley’s book as he describes how the Bishop or Rome’s power DEVELOPED over time from being similar (non-distinguishable perhaps) from other Bishops to being prime.

I think Catholic apologist do a poor job of dealing with the evidence that we have. Arguments like Clement of Rome was the pope and wrote to the Corinthians are dismantled by Nibley AND Sullivan (and I think Eno, but I do not remember as much of his book). I also think the Father Sullivan’s work does a lot for showing that Protestants without a strong priesthood have missed what the Apostles and their Co-workers put in place. However, I think Nibley offers a good read of the history that does not require a structure to undergo such a radical development.
Charity, TOm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have always thought it odd that Jesus, in conferring such an important office on Simon bar Jonah, chose a Greek name for him, Peter, and used a pun on the Greek meaning of that name, referring to Peter, as petros means ‘rock’ in Greek.

Jesus was a Jew and spoke Aramaic. I doubt if he was fluent in Greek and that he would have given Simon a Greek name, punning on its Greek meaning as he did so.

The obvious conclusion is that the passage was written long after the early Christians had given up on the Jews, were writing in Greek (all the gospels are in Greek) for their Greek converts, and Peter has assumed leadership of the early new religion. There is nothing about this passage which suggests that Jesus ever spoke it in the manner that it has survived.

the Aramaic in both cases is “Kefa”, which does appear in the the NT as “Cephas.” The obvious conclusion is that the passage refers to something of the Aramaic roots of the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

A pope is not ‘ordained’, he is elected. The fullness of the sacrament of holy orders is the ordination of a bishop. The gift of infallibility which protects the pope from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals is a charism. Charisms are not conferred by sacraments; they are gifts of the Holy Spirit who gives them for the good of the church.

And sacraments are not the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

No, what you suggest here would be like putting private revelation on a par with public revelation, although this distinction that Rome makes seems at times to be more honored in the breach (try questioning Fatima, and you will see what I mean).

An archbishop or cardinal is not ordained, but elevated. Yet no special charism is attached to those offices. They are just bishops.

Which is also what the pope of Rome is, a bishop.

For the pope to operate the way he claims, they would have to be a fourth order of the ordained priesthood above deacon-priest-bishop. There isn’t.

 

[paarsurrey]

The idea of “keys” is that the person has the king’s authority when the king is not present.

Hi

Sorry, I don’t agree with you.

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Quran only tells us that Jesus was a Israelite ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH. Quran nowhere tells us that Jesus was a King; and Jesus was never a King of this world in any case; if at all he was of the SpiritualWorld which would again mean he was a ProphetMessenger of GodAllahYHWH.

Jesus had no territory to rule on, neither he excersised any authority of a King on anyone. There was no city on which he ruled that he had its keys with him to give it to somebody else to make him a viceroy.

I guess that these keys might have been an invention of Paul to give some authority to Peter, so that that authority ultimately gets passed to Paul by Peter. They both collaborated and needed one another to address gentile Romans against the teaching of Jesus.

This is my opinion, you could differ with it.

Thanks