M
Mickey
Guest
And here we see the connection to binding and loosing.
If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
J
jam070406
Guest
I thought I saw, on another thread, Pope Benedict recently said (WYD?) during a homily that the rock was Peter’s confession. I may have read wrong though.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No you are stretching and incorrect. He left the Keys to St.“Peter” that is what Tetullian states.
BTW since we are “stuck” on Patristics, and you seem to live by them. Why is it that St. Cyprian of Carthage and his “cathedra” seem of so little concern? There you may begin to understand the God given responsibility of the Pope and Ex-Cathedra.
Since “you” are now stretching, then lets, Here lets read this one more time…
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). {CAF}
So let me stretch …
And this “is” the structure of all the Apostolic Churchs and the overall stucture at top is Rome. And St Peter has the Keys. And its St. Peter:thumbsup:*
BTW since we are “stuck” on Patristics, and you seem to live by them. Why is it that St. Cyprian of Carthage and his “cathedra” seem of so little concern? There you may begin to understand the God given responsibility of the Pope and Ex-Cathedra.
Since “you” are now stretching, then lets, Here lets read this one more time…
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). {CAF}
So let me stretch …
And this “is” the structure of all the Apostolic Churchs and the overall stucture at top is Rome.
And St Peter has the Keys. And its St. Peter:thumbsup:*
M
Mickey
Guest
L
lyrikal
Guest
Hello Mickey,
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON “KEYS” OF ISAIAH 22:22
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann are quite certain when they comment on Matthew 16:19 –
The Evangelical New Bible Commentary states on Isaiah 22 –
The Evangelical NIV Study Bible notes on Isaiah 22 –
The Lutheran/Catholic ecumenical study Peter in the New Testament comments –
The Brethren/Mennonite commentary by Richard B. Gardner –
Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce comments –
Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm#BIBLE3
Only Scott Hahn? Here are some PROTESTANT Bible Commentaries on Isaiah 22:22:
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON “KEYS” OF ISAIAH 22:22
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann are quite certain when they comment on Matthew 16:19 –
Code:
"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.' The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)
Code:
"Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3...Godward he is called my servant (20)...manward he will be a father to his community (21)...The key...of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22...emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).... Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8)." (NBC page 647)
Code:
on verse 15: "...in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king..."; on verse 22: "...key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David's dynasty -- perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the 'keys of the kingdom' given to Peter (Mt 16:19) ."
Code:
"One suggestion is that the verse [Matt 16:19] is evocative of Isa 22:15-25 where Shebna, prime minister of King Hezekiah of Judah, is deposed and replaced by Eliakim on whose shoulder God places 'the key of David; he shall open...and he shall shut.' The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king. If this were the background of Matthew's 'keys of the kingdom,' then Peter might be being portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim, and the power of binding and loosing would be a specification of the broader power of allowing or refusing entrance into the kingdom....The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,' was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary." (Brown, Reumann, et al page 96-97, and footnote referring to Roland DeVaux Ancient Israel)
Code:
"The image of the keys likely comes from an oracle in Isaiah, which speaks of the installation of a new majordomo or steward in Hezekiah's palace." (Gardner, page 248)
Code:
"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)
M
Mickey
Guest
Sorry…I believe it is you who are stretching.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
OK so we are making progess? Good we shall talk more tommorrow.
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Of course not. I already posted from his retractations. Let’s see more!"And of course since you are talking St Augustine? Lets not forget him.
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
And I will re-post this one:
And I tell you…**‘**You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
M
Mickey
Guest
L
lyrikal
Guest
- According, however, to what had been before decided, when the persecution was quieted, and opportunity of meeting was afforded; a large number of bishops, whom their faith and the divine protection had preserved in soundness and safety, we met together; and the divine Scriptures being brought forward on both sides, we balanced the decision with wholesome moderation, so that neither should hope of communion and peace be wholly denied to the lapsed, lest they should fail still more through desperation. and, because the Church was closed to them, should, like the world, live as heathens; nor yet, on the other hand, should the censure of the Gospel be relaxed, so that they might rashly rush to communion, but that repentance should be long protracted, and the paternal clemency be sorrowfully besought, and the cases, and the wishes, and the necessities of individuals be examined into, according to what is contained in a little book, which I trust has come to you, in which the several heads of our decisions are collected. **And lest perchance the number of bishops in Africa should seem unsatisfactory, we also wrote to Rome, to Cornelius our colleague, concerning this thing, who himself also holding a council with very many bishops, concurred in the same opinion as we had held, with equal gravity and wholesome moderation. **
(Source: newadvent.org/fathers/050651.htm)
Question, if Cyprian believed ALL Bishops are equal, then why would he need to write to the Bishop of Rome (Pope Cornelius) to “concur in the same opinion” as they had held? There was a large number of Bishops that held a council and agreed upon something. If all Bishops are equal, why write to Pope Cornelius?
Elsewhere, Cyprian writes a letter to Pope Stephen:
"You ought to send very full letters to our fellow-bishops in Gaul, not to allow the obstinate and proud Marcianus any more to insult our fellowship…Therefore send letters to the province and to the people of Arles, by which, Marcianus having been excommunicated, another shall be substituted in his place…for the whole copious body of bishops is joined together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity, in order that if any of our fellowship should attempt to make a heresy and to lacerate and devastate the flock of Christ, the rest may give their aid…For though we are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock. "
-St. Cyprian letter to Pope Stephen (source: newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm)
Why does St. Cyprian continue going to the Pope for such things if all Bishops are equal? Was St. Cyprian not himself a Bishop? Why did he not see himself as equal with the Pope and henceforth send the letter himself?
L
lyrikal
Guest
“some protestant sources…”I stand corrected.
Hahn…and some protestant sources.
Tell me, why would a Protestant want to admit that Matthew 16 is connected to Isaiah 22? It doesn’t really help their case against the papacy. What these commentaries are doing is being honest to the text and not being biased. The difference between these commentaries/Protestant scholars and the Catholic Church is that some of these scholars admit that Peter was the head and the leader of the Apostles the way the Pope is the leader and head of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church but they will not admit that there was such a succession passed on.
If we put Orthodox Scholars and Protestant Scholars together, we will get a Catholic understanding of the Papacy. The Protestants admit their to be a head of the 12 in the first century (Peter) but do not believe there to be a succession while the Orthodox believe Peter was “first among equals” and admit to such a succession.
For me to show Protestant scholars admitting a connection to Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 would be equivilent to quoting a Protestant scholar who admits that the Early Church did not practice Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. His scholarly work and studies would force him to admit such a thing even though it goes against what he believes and even though it helps the other side’s case more. Why else would a Protestant admit to such a Catholic understanding of Scripture?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Hey Mickey maybe you read this
St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the “Holy See”
“Rome has spoken; THE CASE IS CLOSED” (Sermon 131:10)
St Augustine spoke not once but “many” time on this. The vague comment you posted bears no weight against all his writings.
philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm
J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, at that writes in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :
“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)
In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that
(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;
(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;
(3) St. Augustine’s “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);
Let me know if you need more Patristics which “confirm” Rome/St-Peter/Primacy/Infallibility.
Peace.
St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the “Holy See”
“Rome has spoken; THE CASE IS CLOSED” (Sermon 131:10)
St Augustine spoke not once but “many” time on this. The vague comment you posted bears no weight against all his writings.
philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num51.htm
philvaz.com/apologetics/num44.htm
J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, at that writes in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :
“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)
In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that
(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;
(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;
(3) St. Augustine’s “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);
Let me know if you need more Patristics which “confirm” Rome/St-Peter/Primacy/Infallibility.
Peace.
L
lyrikal
Guest
That whole article above is made void by the very fact that it was St. Pope Leo’s letter that they read.
The Council of Chalcedon letter to St. Leo the Great is even more evidence that they saw him as the head:
And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them ,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem.
Elsewhere they continue:
Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. For thus will our pious Emperors be treated with due regard, who have ratified your holiness’ judgment as law, and the See of Constantinople will receive its recompense for having always displayed such loyalty on matters of religion towards you, and for having so zealously linked itself to you in full agreement.
-Letter 98: From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo (Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm)
God bless.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
There are also letters addressed to other Patriarchs of the Church which use similar language. Hyperbole (as we can see in the hymnography of the Church) was a common literary technique back in those times.
L
lyrikal
Guest
But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided. For to this end we direct all our desires and pains, that what conduces to our harmonious unity and to the protection of discipline may be marred by no dissension and neglected by no slothfulness. Therefore, dearly beloved brother, you and those our brethren who are offended at your extravagant conduct (though the matter of complaint is not the same with all), we exhort and warn not to disturb by any wrangling what has been rightfully ordained and wisely settled. Let none “seek what is his own, but what is another’s,” as the Apostle says: "Let each one of you please his neighbour for his good unto edifying. " For the cementing of our unity cannot be firm unless we be bound by the bond of love into an inseparable solidity: because "as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and all of us members one of another. " The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them: and as he does not wish to bear a heavy load of baggage, so let him not dare to place on another’s shoulders a weight that is insupportable. For we are disciples of the humble and gentle Master who says: “Learn of Me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden light Matthew 11:29-30 .” And how shall we experience this, unless this too comes to our remembrance which the same Lord says: "He that is greater among you, shall be your servant. But he that exalts himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbles himself, shall be exalted. "
-Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 14.12 to to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica
Source (newadvent.org/fathers/3604014.htm)
I apologize in advance for the huge font to emphasize my points but I want to make sure you see what St. Leo meant when he said “because they were equal in their election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death.”
Those words do not mean that they were equal in rank or in power. Context is key.
God bless.
L
lyrikal
Guest
My point has little to do with the language used as far as “head” and what not and more to do with “Peter has spoken thus through Leo.” It was St. Leo’s letter that they read, not Cyril. I am replying to Mickey’s point.
God bless.
This sounds rather, um, Lutheran.I like this one! Tetullian is referring to the Rock as Peter’s confession of faith…as he tells us that everyone can carry the keys.
Jon
R
rinnie
Guest
If Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to all of the Apostles why can’t anyone produce the teaching in either SS or ST?And as we know…the keys are Biblically connected to binding and loosing. In Matthew 18:18 we see where Christ gives authority to ALL the Apostles to bind and loose…hence ALL the Apostles hold the keys.
I find it interesting when RC’s set forth arguments attempting to show that St Peter was the only one to receive the keys (I do not see where Christ has withheld the keys from the others). From there…there is a jump to St Peter being the first Pope…then it proceeds to the supremacy/infallibility argument.
The Lord stated YOU are PETER and to YOU I gvie the keys to the kindom. He stated plain as day YOU ARE PETER and to YOU.
We all agree that all of the Apostles have the authority to bind and loose which is to forgvie sin. We all agree on that. If they did not they could not forgive our sin in the name of God.
But why has there been so much bickering about ALL of the Apostles having the keys to the kingdom when scripture is quiet clear it is Peter and Peter only. Our dear Lord stated his name. You are PETER and to YOU.
- Status