T
Through_Him
Guest
From what I can tell Jesus is talking about converts and telling the truth.
My references relate Luke to Matthew to Matthew 23:13
“Woe to you teachers of the law…”
In your opinion, what does the phrase "keys to the kingdom" refer to?
- Status
My references relate Luke to Matthew to Matthew 23:13
“Woe to you teachers of the law…”
W
WarriorAngel
Guest
Yes, i believe Peter held all the keys of the Apostles…so as to ensure the Apostles stayed with Peter and his successors through out the ages.
St John Chrysostom mentions the others having a key - so if he understood that all the Apostles essentially had a key [perhaps in instructing and in the council] then it stands to reason that the ‘keys’ handed specifically to Peter in that pronouncement meant he was the holder of their authorities.
IE - the cheifest. The one who kept their keys and they need him to open and shut. They cannot do so without his assistance.
W
WarriorAngel
Guest
Adding that the East cannot define anything even to this day - and so without the inspiration to teach there upon the questions in each new generation, and understand it beyond what was already defined [via the Pope] they can only remain silent and tell the truth that to them it is a mystery.
Yes there are mysteries. God is a mystery. But the Roman Pope has always been and always will be the teacher of Christianity.
Until we are one again…
Yes there are mysteries. God is a mystery. But the Roman Pope has always been and always will be the teacher of Christianity.
Until we are one again…
J
jean8
Guest
mmm,
Lu.11:52 Jesus is critizing the Religous Leaders.
Mt.16, Peter said to Jesus, “thou at the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” All believers today are joined into the Church by faith In Jesus Christ, the same faith Peter confessed here. See Eph.2:20-21
God bless,
jean8
S
script77
Guest
True.
A
allhers
Guest
I know you weren’t speaking to me here, however, I would like you to take note of Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts of the Apostles in chapter 9 where the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip… and then The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” …Philip asked the Ethiopian, who was reading Isaiah the prophet if he understood what he was reading and the Ethopian replied…“How can I, unless someone instructs me?”
Acts9:26-40
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I’m going on a bit of a tangent here, but why are the keys, one gold and one silver? Does this symbolize two grades of salvation?
C
chrisb
Guest
So you are going to use Acts 9:26-40 to contradict 1 John 2:27? What kind of exegesis we are using if it makes the Holy Spirit a liar?
It is true," says St. Gregory, “that some saints have been guided directly by God”; but, he continues, “such examples are rather to be admired than imitated, for, thinking ourselves above the guidance of holy men, we might easily be led into error.” Virtue is found in the golden mean; as idleness in the spiritual life is a fault, so too is intemperate zeal. It is the duty of the spiritual director to war against the former and to moderate the latter.
So I’m not arguing that one should ‘not’ have a spiritual director but I am saying that we should be very careful in suggesting that the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide ‘individuals’… for surely He does.
A
allhers
Guest
I was not using it to contradict but only to point out that all do need instruction IF they did not remain with Apostolic witness.So you are going to use Acts 9:26-40 to contradict 1 John 2:27? What kind of exegesis we are using if it makes the Holy Spirit a liar?
It is true," says St. Gregory, “that some saints have been guided directly by God”; but, he continues, “such examples are rather to be admired than imitated, for, thinking ourselves above the guidance of holy men, we might easily be led into error.” Virtue is found in the golden mean; as idleness in the spiritual life is a fault, so too is intemperate zeal. It is the duty of the spiritual director to war against the former and to moderate the latter.
So I’m not arguing that one should ‘not’ have a spiritual director but I am saying that we should be very careful in suggesting that the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide ‘individuals’… for surely He does.
(Being as how the Bible was written by the Church for the Church.)
C
chrisb
Guest
What is the Church if not the People of God?
A
allhers
Guest
Perhaps you ought to start a new thread about this, afterall, on this one we are suppose to be discussing the Keys to the Kingdom, if you start it, I will go.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Jesus was referring to Isaiah 22:16-22: ‘Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: “What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?” The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.’
The House of David is the Reign of David, the lineage tracing back to King David which is required of the Messiah. It would seem, at first glance, that Jesus is calling Peter the Messiah, but this would be contrary to his earlier confession of who Jesus is. On second glance, and in light of the Tradition of the Church and of the analogy of faith, Jesus is calling Peter the Vicar of Christ.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Allow me to expand on what I mean.
In the Scriptures, there is only one instance of the word “vicar”, and it is in 2 Kings 23:4: ‘Then the king commanded the high priest Hilkiah, his vicar, and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the LORD all the objects that had been made for Baal, Asherah, and the whole host of heaven. He had these burned outside Jerusalem on the slopes of the Kidron and their ashes carried to Bethel.’
Now, a scholar might ask, “If the priest is the vicar of the king, than how can the Pope be the Vicar of Christ? Or how can Peter be the Vicar of Christ if he was not a priest?”
To answer the second question:
Jesus clearly gives the Apostles a share in His priestly office when, in John 20:21-23, He says: ‘(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”’
The Father sent Jesus as High Priest and as Lamb of God to offer Himself in atonement for the sins of mankind; therefore, Jesus is sending the Apostles as priests: He is giving them the office of the priesthood. Peter was especially given the priesthood, as Jesus says: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” Only the High Priest in Judaism could ask God to forgive people their sins. Jesus is speaking to all His Apostles, but He is singling out Peter, the leader of the Twelve. (Since there is only Lamb of God, the Apostles were not made lambs; but since they are members of Christ’s Flock, they are called sheep. Just as Jesus was High Priest and Lamb of God, so too are the Apostles both shephards and sheep.)
Hence, Peter was truly given the office of Vicar of Christ. The papal title ‘Vicar of Christ’ is clearly biblical than. But that is not all! There is one more verse I want to bring to attention:
In John 21:15-17, we read: ‘When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”’
In those days, the shephard was the one who fed his sheep and took care of them. Hence, Jesus is making Peter the shephard of His flock.
In the Catholic Church, all of the bishops are shephards of their particular flocks, but only the Pope is the Shephard of the entire Flock of Christ.
To answer the first question:
Finally, the office of Pope is a priestly office. Any man may become Pope, but if he is not yet a bishop, he must first be given the office of Bishop, and than he is given the office of Pope. (The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and are spoken of in Titus 1:7-9: ‘For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.’)
C
chrisb
Guest
My point would be if we’re going to discuss a broader understanding of the “Keys to the Kingdom” I don’t see how we’re not going to talk about the Church… the two go hand-in-hand.
You interpretation of the “Keys” are influenced by your understanding as to what the Church actually is. This is my whole point.
A
adolfo123
Guest
maybe it’s relevant to the kings of the kingdom… what i have heard about the keys is the when a king would go out to war or away he would give the keys to a trusted individual… that person would let people into the kingdom or not…
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Here is what Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. says about Luke 11:52
God bless,
ZP
F
Faith_at_Large
Guest
M
mmmcounts
Guest
And if you have the key to the kingdom, you have access to it. Excellent point. But how are we to understand the nature of this kingdom?
Ok, no he didn’t appoint Peter the Head of His church, he’s one “pillar” among three. I will agree with the “access to heaven” bit, specifically meaning the apostles have the information necessary to “access heaven” (also be part of Christ’s kingdom). We have these keys, too, and when the keys are given to you you’re supposed to “make copies” and give them to other people. Then they make copies and give them to other people and they…well, pretty soon the whole world has the keys to the kingdom and at least have the ability to enter if they want to. Of course, there will be some that do things that take away the “key to knowledge,” and eternity won’t be nice for them. Oh well, we persevere.
And it came very soon, right? Like, right after Easter, or perhaps around the time of Pentecost? Or did the kingdom have to wait until it could secure a proper capitol in Rome a century or so later?
I’m not the head of my house, but I still have a key to it and I come and go when I want. That’s because I’m a part of the family, and in terms of access to the house, I have the same access as everyone else living there. When I have kids, they’ll have access to the house too- I won’t play the role of gatekeeper and only let them in when I say so. They live there. They’re family. It is this way with the Christ’s Kingdom- all who belong to it are part of God’s family and are God’s children. They all have keys- how else would they get into the Kingdom?
This is where the Church of Rome started running into problems. They started modeling church hierarchy after the government of the time, where the Pope occupies a position analogous to a Ceasar and the cardinals are like the Senate. God’s Kingdom is not that way. It is described in terms of a family.
Have you seen the literal translation to that? It includes great examples of future passive periphrastic participles that are better rendered this way:
Whatever you bind on earth shall be having been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be having been loosed in heaven.
This is an extremely rare grammatical form in the Bible, and the fact that this is what Jesus uses certainly alters your understanding of the passage. Check the OP for the link I provided. It explains the grammar behind what the future passive means. There are helpful pictures. You’ll want to look at the second diagram- Duration Before Something In the Future, Non-Continuous Verbs. It shocks me that no Catholics seem to know anything about this.
Yes.
Yes, sort of. What is the Kingdom of Heaven, though? I bet you think it’s the RCC.
Yes. I’d add that it’s the knowledge of how to enter.
There is no prime minister in Jesus’ kingdom.
Again, use the link that explains the grammar of the future passive to you. The initial agency of this “governance” (probably not the best word to describe it) has its agency in the past (all of this being relative to when Jesus spoke the words), it is continued in the present, and it is completed in the future. You must understand the future passive in order to properly understand this passage.
And finally, a very simple argument against the notion that the Roman Catholic Church constitutes the Kingdom of God here on earth.
20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you."
The Kingdom of God is a right here right now kind of thing. It is within us. For those who say “Here is is! It’s called the Roman Catholic Church, and we are in charge of the Kingdom,” they are full of **** because “the kingdom of God is within you.” Capisce?
M
mmmcounts
Guest
19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Prophecy of Scripture refers to “the word of the prophets.” It is the stuff the prophets gave to us. We should pay attention to it, knowing that the word of the prophets was not given to us from their own interpretation; rather, the source was the Holy Spirit.
This passage is talking about where we got Scripture from and how it was given to us. It is not talking about the way in which we are supposed to interpret Scripture when reading it. Has no one ever pointed this out to you? Or did you just ignore them every time they did? How could you be so unaware of this? (I really do want a response to these questions. Don’t just ignore them and continue telling this same nonsense to every Protestant you see).
You want to try again? There are a few places in the Bible where it gives some guidelines that actually have something to do with reading the Word of God. Can you find them? If not, I’ll find them for you.
First, that’s a false dichotomy (typical behavior of a troll, ironically). It’s entirely possible that the answer is “neither.” I guess I’m trying to learn a little bit about the Catholic Church, mostly so I can talk about it accurately instead of making the same false accusations about “what they believe” like you see almost all Christians of any sect doing. I know a lot of my Protestant friends and acquaintances say plenty of stuff about what it is to be Catholic that’s patently false, and I can attest to just as much of it coming the other way from Catholics on this forum. And you guys are supposed to be the ones that are pretty well acquainted with the issues here. Sometimes it’s a little disappointing. That’s why I have to put some work in on my own end and present the Protestant side in the most accurate way that I can.
Second, if this is your definition of “trolling,” there is something wrong with your definition of trolling. In the context of a moderated forum, trolling includes repeated infractions that result in being banned (still here, right?), unfounded personal attacks, spamming, flaming (particularly without staying on topic, also called threadjacking), use of ad hominem attacks, creation of sockpuppet accounts in order to start silly arguments with yourself and jack things up, and of course straw men. I try to avoid these things and you should too.
J
jean8
Guest
chrisb,
After Jesus was crucified he later appeared to the other Disciples, and said.“Peace be with you.” As the Father has sent me so I send you. When He had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit 23. If you forgive sins they are forgiven,if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
See Jn. 20:19-23. Jesus appeared to them behind closed doors…
God bless,
jean8
- Status