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

[paarsurrey]

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.

Hi

I agree with you.

Thanks

 

[Righteousone]

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?

Perhaps a bishop is higher than a priest and these are the rules of the church.

 

[mtr01]

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.

I know this has been explained to you many times, Isa.

First, there is a charism associated with the office of cardinal (the ability to elect a pope). Furthermore an archbishop is not “elevated” he is simply the bishop of an archdiocese (that is a diocese with several suffragen dioceses).

Finally, the point which you keep ignoring is that the charism of infallibility is a property of the office, not the person. If Pope Benedict were to step down for whatever reason, he would no longer be protected by the charism of papal infallibility, thus it is incorrect to claim that being consecrated pope requires a “fourth degree” of holy orders, as holy orders constitutes an ontological change, whereas papal infallibilty does not.

In short, apples and oranges.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I know this has been explained to you many times, Isa.

First, there is a charism associated with the office of cardinal (the ability to elect a pope). Furthermore an archbishop is not “elevated” he is simply the bishop of an archdiocese (that is a diocese with several suffragen dioceses).

Finally, the point which you keep ignoring is that the charism of infallibility is a property of the office, not the person. If Pope Benedict were to step down for whatever reason, he would no longer be protected by the charism of papal infallibility, thus it is incorrect to claim that being consecrated pope requires a “fourth degree” of holy orders, as holy orders constitutes an ontological change, whereas papal infallibilty does not.

In short, apples and oranges.

It seems more like a fruit salad to me.

This “charism” that you speak of the Cardinals possessing, doesn’t go back to the early church as there was no college of cardinals there.

In Irenaeus we read that the Apostles, including Peter chose their successors and made them bishops (In Peter’s case, the bishop of Rome). We know from later history that many of these bishops died without leaving successors and that the bishop of Rome was selected by the believers in Rome.

Later the priests in Rome made the selection, as “representatives” of the believers and later cardinals appeared in an attempt to make papal selection more inclusive, being essentially named “priests emeritus” of the parishes located in Rome, to tie this change back to the earlier practice.

To claim a “charism” for this series of clearly procedural changes put God in the unenviable position of having measuring once and cut several time when offering that gift of grace. “Here’s grace to Peter and his successors to make a wise choice. Oops!, I’m transferring the grace to the believers in Rome. Oops! To the priests in Rome. Oops! To the cardinals who are sort of priests in Rome.”

In a previous thread I asked how the Apostles could feel it necessary to choose their successors before death to improve the likelihood of a good outcome for the church, yet this practice is no longer followed by the Catholic church today. How indeed could the charism of infallibility be passed on if the person possessing it didn’t do the passing? The passage in Matthew says the keys were given to Peter, not his office.

This only begins to touch on the difficulties I have with the concept of the papacy, but I’ll stop here for now and await some answers.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I know this has been explained to you many times, Isa.

Yes, and the inconsistency has never been resolved.

First, there is a charism associated with the office of cardinal (the ability to elect a pope).

And the first thousand years there were no cardinals.

Furthermore an archbishop is not “elevated” he is simply the bishop of an archdiocese (that is a diocese with several suffragen dioceses).

I forgot, you reorganized your hierarchy.

Finally, the point which you keep ignoring is that the charism of infallibility is a property of the office, not the person. If Pope Benedict were to step down for whatever reason, he would no longer be protected by the charism of papal infallibility, thus it is incorrect to claim that being consecrated pope requires a “fourth degree” of holy orders, as holy orders constitutes an ontological change, whereas papal infallibilty does not.

I forgot that your theology thinks of the priesthood as the personal property of the priest.

 

[johnnydigit]

if there isn’t photographic evidence of Peter HANDING the keys over to the next Pope, and then so forth…

"oh ya, well… that photo could be fake!

i need um… a non-biased forensic photographer who can verify the photo. i’ll then need a chancellor who can verify his degree. i’ll then need a verification from a council on that chancellor. basically, i’ll need a valid history book.

oh wait, i’ll need validation from that book’s publisher. wait, they didn’t have these back then. forget it, i don’t believe any of it! i guess i would need God Himself to verify it. i like my church and i’m sticking with it."

just like scientists trying to figure out the origin of the universe, i think there will always be the unknown, the uncaused cause, which is God. the only thing left is faith.

just like trying to figure out what Jesus referred to, people will keep offering a different perspective on Peter’s authority, keep searching for an unknown. the simplest and most logical answer is still, Peter is the rock. stop searching and have faith in the most reasonable answer so you can move on.

 

[mtr01]

It seems more like a fruit salad to me.

This “charism” that you speak of the Cardinals possessing, doesn’t go back to the early church as there was no college of cardinals there.

In Irenaeus we read that the Apostles, including Peter chose their successors and made them bishops (In Peter’s case, the bishop of Rome). We know from later history that many of these bishops died without leaving successors and that the bishop of Rome was selected by the believers in Rome.

Later the priests in Rome made the selection, as “representatives” of the believers and later cardinals appeared in an attempt to make papal selection more inclusive, being essentially named “priests emeritus” of the parishes located in Rome, to tie this change back to the earlier practice.

To claim a “charism” for this series of clearly procedural changes put God in the unenviable position of having measuring once and cut several time when offering that gift of grace. “Here’s grace to Peter and his successors to make a wise choice. Oops!, I’m transferring the grace to the believers in Rome. Oops! To the priests in Rome. Oops! To the cardinals who are sort of priests in Rome.”

There is no inconsistency, and it does not "put God in an unenviable position, if one understands the idea of charism properly. A couple of brief examples bears this out. Specifically, we speak of the charism of different religious orders: the Dominicans have the charism of preaching; the Carmelites have the charism of contemplative prayer, etc. To use your line of reasoning, this would also put God in the “unenviable position” of giving the grace of preaching to x person before the dominicans were formed. Ooops!, now I’m giving that grace to the Dominicans. Ooops!, now no one else can be given the grace to preach, etc. etc.

Your line of reasoning just isn’t realistic.

In a previous thread I asked how the Apostles could feel it necessary to choose their successors before death to improve the likelihood of a good outcome for the church, yet this practice is no longer followed by the Catholic church today. How indeed could the charism of infallibility be passed on if the person possessing it didn’t do the passing? The passage in Matthew says the keys were given to Peter, not his office.

This only begins to touch on the difficulties I have with the concept of the papacy, but I’ll stop here for now and await some answers.

Again, infallibility is a property of the office, not the pope per se. As a result it makes little difference (in regards to infallibilty) how a successor is chosen. As for the passage in Matthew, the giving of keys symbolizes the authority given by the king (Christ) to the chief steward (Peter) (cf. Isaiah 22:22). The office of chief steward did not die with the steward, but was passed on to his successor (in absence of the king). However, as this is somewhat off-topic I will leave it at what is said above, and refer you to the many many threads concerning the keys and chief steward on the forums.

 

[mtr01]

Yes, and the inconsistency has never been resolved.

Sure it has.

And the first thousand years there were no cardinals.

Inconsequential.

I forgot, you reorganized your hierarchy.

Not relevant. An Archbishop is no different from a Metropolitan as concerns Holy Orders.

I forgot that your theology thinks of the priesthood as the personal property of the priest.

Holy Orders has no ontological significance in your theology?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There is no inconsistency, and it does not "put God in an unenviable position, if one understands the idea of charism properly. A couple of brief examples bears this out. Specifically, we speak of the charism of different religious orders: the Dominicans have the charism of preaching; the Carmelites have the charism of contemplative prayer, etc. To use your line of reasoning, this would also put God in the “unenviable position” of giving the grace of preaching to x person before the dominicans were formed. Ooops!, now I’m giving that grace to the Dominicans. Ooops!, now no one else can be given the grace to preach, etc. etc.

Your line of reasoning just isn’t realistic.

Again, infallibility is a property of the office, not the pope per se. As a result it makes little difference (in regards to infallibilty) how a successor is chosen. As for the passage in Matthew, the giving of keys symbolizes the authority given by the king (Christ) to the chief steward (Peter) (cf. Isaiah 22:22). The office of chief steward did not die with the steward, but was passed on to his successor (in absence of the king). .

Read Isaiah to verse 25. The modern eisogetes tend to leave that one out.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Sure it has.

Inconsequential.

Not relevant. An Archbishop is no different from a Metropolitan as concerns Holy Orders.

Holy Orders has no ontological significance in your theology?

Besides the episcopate being an ontological unit (with the priesthood and deaconate subsisting in it), itself subsisting in Christ’s unique priesthood, no.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

…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…

Hi paarsurrey,

It was actually Matthew (16:18-19) who told us about the keys. And it fits nicely with the words from the ancient prophet Isaiah (22:22).

I don’t know why you’re mentioning Paul. You’re either proposing a consipirarcy theory, or you’re getting confused with different thread on these forums.

 

[BCPoulsen]

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

Thank you. Sounds like some good references. I’ll research.

 

[Non_Serviam]

There is no inconsistency, and it does not "put God in an unenviable position, if one understands the idea of charism properly. A couple of brief examples bears this out. Specifically, we speak of the charism of different religious orders: the Dominicans have the charism of preaching; the Carmelites have the charism of contemplative prayer, etc. To use your line of reasoning, this would also put God in the “unenviable position” of giving the grace of preaching to x person before the dominicans were formed. Ooops!, now I’m giving that grace to the Dominicans. Ooops!, now no one else can be given the grace to preach, etc. etc.

Your line of reasoning just isn’t realistic.

I agree, your presentation of my argument isn’t realistic, but then neither are most scarecrows. The OP discusses the passing of the keys from Peter to the present. In response to Isa’s challenge of previous arguments, the response was given that the Cardinals’ charism made this possible.

Just as many Catholics like to argue that any church that can’t trace itself back to Jesus has a credibility problem, likewise a solution that only covers that period during which cardinals elect the Pope can have its credibility challenged as a solution that is supposed to go back to Peter.

Does that make my objection clearer?

Again, infallibility is a property of the office, not the pope per se. As a result it makes little difference (in regards to infallibilty) how a successor is chosen. As for the passage in Matthew, the giving of keys symbolizes the authority given by the king (Christ) to the chief steward (Peter) (cf. Isaiah 22:22). The office of chief steward did not die with the steward, but was passed on to his successor (in absence of the king). However, as this is somewhat off-topic I will leave it at what is said above, and refer you to the many many threads concerning the keys and chief steward on the forums.

Rather than tackle the assumptions inherent in this response, I’d rather return to Irenaeus and ask again: If what Irenaeus wrote is correct and Peter (like all of the Apostles) felt it was necessary to select his successor to ensure a positive outcome for the church, why isn’t this Apostolic practice respected today?

 

[SeanTom]

KEYS OF THE KINGDOM“ - WHAT ARE THEY?

I quote Matt. 16:19. “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

As we all know, these “keys” aren’t like the keys to our homes, or whatever. They are not material devices to open doors. They are more like, in modern day language, the keys to the city as given to some dignitaries by the Mayor. Only the keys the Mayor presents will not unlock or open doors as the keys given to Peter. Peter’s keys were spiritual keys used under the authority of the Gospels, to open the gate of Heaven to those of us who have lived the way Jesus intended. .

In my opinion, the keys to the Kingdom refers to the powers of the Gospel, which will unlock the hearts of people, leaving them open to accept salvation leading them to God’s Kingdom. Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…” (Rom. 1:16). Peter used the keys (power) of the Gospel to open the door for the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

These keys represent the powers of the Gospels, and were handed down by Peter to the other apostles, disciples, ministers of the church, etc., who were and are involved in evangelizing the good news of the Gospel to all people. In the case of Peter, these keys (powers of the Gospel) were the means by which a man’s heart can be unlocked and opened to receive and accept Jesus as Savior of the World… These “spiritual” keys were given to Peter by Jesus and were eventually passed down to and in the custody of our reigning Popes, who then passes them down to those who are ministers of the Gospel. Obviously, as said before, these were not keys as we know them to be, they do not lock or unlock doors; but rather are spiritual keys that can unlock our hearts and souls for the glory of God. I believe that Priests today do have these spiritual keys and are deputized and commanded to use them for the purpose of unlocking our hearts and souls through the professing of God’s teachings from the pulpit and personal counseling.

Again, please remember that this is my opinion as I have no references to confirm what I said about the true meaning of the “Keys”. In large part, I am using my God given common sense to come up with something that satisfies my curiosity.

 

[Protestant101]

Can anyone show from the Bible, and/or official Catholic literature; EXACTLY what those “keys” are? Note, it says “keys” in the plural, not in the singular, as in “authority.”

 

[Claire_from_DE]

KEYS OF THE KINGDOM“ - WHAT ARE THEY?

I quote Matt. 16:19. “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

As we all know, these “keys” aren’t like the keys to our homes, or whatever. They are not material devices to open doors. They are more like, in modern day language, the keys to the city as given to some dignitaries by the Mayor. Only the keys the Mayor presents will not unlock or open doors as the keys given to Peter. Peter’s keys were spiritual keys used under the authority of the Gospels, to open the gate of Heaven to those of us who have lived the way Jesus intended. .

In my opinion, the keys to the Kingdom refers to the powers of the Gospel, which will unlock the hearts of people, leaving them open to accept salvation leading them to God’s Kingdom. Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…” (Rom. 1:16). Peter used the keys (power) of the Gospel to open the door for the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

These keys represent the powers of the Gospels, and were handed down by Peter to the other apostles, disciples, ministers of the church, etc., who were and are involved in evangelizing the good news of the Gospel to all people. In the case of Peter, these keys (powers of the Gospel) were the means by which a man’s heart can be unlocked and opened to receive and accept Jesus as Savior of the World… These “spiritual” keys were given to Peter by Jesus and were eventually passed down to and in the custody of our reigning Popes, who then passes them down to those who are ministers of the Gospel. Obviously, as said before, these were not keys as we know them to be, they do not lock or unlock doors; but rather are spiritual keys that can unlock our hearts and souls for the glory of God. I believe that Priests today do have these spiritual keys and are deputized and commanded to use them for the purpose of unlocking our hearts and souls through the professing of God’s teachings from the pulpit and personal counseling.

Again, please remember that this is my opinion as I have no references to confirm what I said about the true meaning of the “Keys”. In large part, I am using my God given common sense to come up with something that satisfies my curiosity.

This is interesting but not how the Catholic church has ever interpreted this passage.

In the Old Testament, the keys were a symbol of the kings authority and were given to one person. They could be taken away from that person and be given to another if the king wished. But it wasn’t given to more than one person at a time.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I agree, your presentation of my argument isn’t realistic, but then neither are most scarecrows. The OP discusses the passing of the keys from Peter to the present. In response to Isa’s challenge of previous arguments, the response was given that the Cardinals’ charism made this possible.

Just as many Catholics like to argue that any church that can’t trace itself back to Jesus has a credibility problem, likewise a solution that only covers that period during which cardinals elect the Pope can have its credibility challenged as a solution that is supposed to go back to Peter.

Does that make my objection clearer?

Rather than tackle the assumptions inherent in this response, I’d rather return to Irenaeus and ask again: If what Irenaeus wrote is correct and Peter (like all of the Apostles) felt it was necessary to select his successor to ensure a positive outcome for the church, why isn’t this Apostolic practice respected today?

Why not just look at this from the point of view that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church. However the pope is appointed or elected, the Spirit protects him from teaching error as doctrine. Even at those times when there was a question as to who was the real pope, doctrinal error was never taught.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Can anyone show from the Bible, and/or official Catholic literature; EXACTLY what those “keys” are? Note, it says “keys” in the plural, not in the singular, as in “authority.”

Matt. 16:19. “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The symbolic ‘keys’ are the authority to bind and loose. Basically, he is given the authority of the king; in this case the king is Jesus. The keys that the Old Testament kings gave his chief steward would open all the doors and gates in the palace. So ‘the keys’ (plural) meant the steward could go anywhere; he had the king’s authority over everything. But he couldn’t do just anything because he was acting on behalf of the king.

We know the bible is true. We know Jesus did say this to Peter. Read what He said. It’s a really strong statement. What Peter would bind on earth would be bound in heaven!! I wouldn’t want to mess with Peter! Look at what happened in Acts 5 to Ananias and his wife. Jesus wasn’t kidding.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Can anyone show from the Bible, and/or official Catholic literature; EXACTLY what those “keys” are? Note, it says “keys” in the plural, not in the singular, as in “authority.”

Matt. 16:19. “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The symbolic ‘keys’ are the authority to bind and loose. Basically, he is given the authority of the king; in this case the king is Jesus. The keys that the Old Testament kings gave his chief steward would open all the doors and gates in the palace. So ‘the keys’ (plural) meant the steward could go anywhere; he had the king’s authority over everything. But he couldn’t do just anything because he was acting on behalf of the king.

We know the bible is true. We know Jesus did say this to Peter. Read what He said. It’s a really strong statement. What Peter would bind on earth would be bound in heaven!! I wouldn’t want to mess with Peter! Look at what happened in Acts 5 to Ananias and his wife. Jesus wasn’t kidding.