Is Apostolic Succession Biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
…As for attaining heaven, I sincerely doubt that for those non Catholics around here who frequent these boards there is any invinceable ignorance.
I think you are limiting the definition of invincible ignorance. The lack of invincible ignorance is not just ‘hearing’ the truth and rejecting it (‘truth’ being another term that seems to be just thrown around by Protestants). It’s ‘knowing’ the truth and rejecting it. In other words, if I hear the truth of the Catholic faith, but cannot honestly assent to it with a good conscience toward God, in essence I do not believe it to be truth though objectively it might be. So it’s not just receiving the information that relieves one of invincible ignorance, it’s knowing that it is truth and then rejecting it, and that cannot be known by anyone other than the individual and God Himself.

When I was a non-Catholic Christian I had been informed of the truth, but was not convinced it was truth. I still loved the Lord with all my heart and sought to serve him in my invincible ignorance to the best of my ability. However, when I finally realized that it was indeed truth, I chose to receive it as such. Had I rejected it at that point, I would have had no excuse.

Therefore, I believe that even ANTI-Catholic Christians (i.e. fundamentalists) who vehemently reject the Catholic Church do so out of invincible ignorance. They have ignorantly been taught to hate the Catholic faith their entire lives :mad:, so to expect them to suddenly just accept it 👍 would be absurd, and to think that God would send them to hell because of the erroneous information they have received and base their entire faith on would seem to be inconsistent with His character. 😦
 
I think you are limiting the definition of invincible ignorance. The lack of invincible ignorance is not just ‘hearing’ the truth and rejecting it (‘truth’ being another term that seems to be just thrown around by Protestants). It’s ‘knowing’ the truth and rejecting it. In other words, if I hear the truth of the Catholic faith, but cannot honestly assent to it with a good conscience toward God, in essence I do not believe it to be truth though objectively it might be. So it’s not just receiving the information that relieves one of invincible ignorance, it’s knowing that it is truth and then rejecting it, and that cannot be known by anyone other than the individual and God Himself.

When I was a non-Catholic Christian I had been informed of the truth, but was not convinced it was truth. I still loved the Lord with all my heart and sought to serve him in my invincible ignorance to the best of my ability. However, when I finally realized that it was indeed truth, I chose to receive it as such. Had I rejected it at that point, I would have had no excuse.

Therefore, I believe that even ANTI-Catholic Christians (i.e. fundamentalists) who vehemently reject the Catholic Church do so out of invincible ignorance. They have ignorantly been taught to hate the Catholic faith their entire lives :mad:, so to expect them to suddenly just accept it 👍 would be absurd, and to think that God would send them to hell because of the erroneous information they have received and base their entire faith on would seem to be inconsistent with His character. 😦
I have to agree with this statement.
 
I think you are limiting the definition of invincible ignorance. The lack of invincible ignorance is not just ‘hearing’ the truth and rejecting it (‘truth’ being another term that seems to be just thrown around by Protestants). It’s ‘knowing’ the truth and rejecting it. In other words, if I hear the truth of the Catholic faith, but cannot honestly assent to it with a good conscience toward God, in essence I do not believe it to be truth though objectively it might be. So it’s not just receiving the information that relieves one of invincible ignorance, it’s knowing that it is truth and then rejecting it, and that cannot be known by anyone other than the individual and God Himself.

When I was a non-Catholic Christian I had been informed of the truth, but was not convinced it was truth. I still loved the Lord with all my heart and sought to serve him in my invincible ignorance to the best of my ability. However, when I finally realized that it was indeed truth, I chose to receive it as such. Had I rejected it at that point, I would have had no excuse.

Therefore, I believe that even ANTI-Catholic Christians (i.e. fundamentalists) who vehemently reject the Catholic Church do so out of invincible ignorance. They have ignorantly been taught to hate the Catholic faith their entire lives :mad:, so to expect them to suddenly just accept it 👍 would be absurd, and to think that God would send them to hell because of the erroneous information they have received and base their entire faith on would seem to be inconsistent with His character. 😦
The way I heard it explained is that if one hears the truth they are under an obligation to investigate it. Those non Catholics here on these forums have not only heard the truth but have had it explained to them. They are, therefore, more so under the obligation to investigate the claims of the church. To hear the truth, have it explained to you and then do nothing but to reject it doesn’t logically conjure up any resemblance of invinceability of ignorance.
 
The way I heard it explained is that if one hears the truth they are under an obligation to investigate it. Those non Catholics here on these forums have not only heard the truth but have had it explained to them. They are, therefore, more so under the obligation to investigate the claims of the church. To hear the truth, have it explained to you and then do nothing but to reject it doesn’t logically conjure up any resemblance of invinceability of ignorance.
Have you ever heard the expression, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If you are under the assumption that you already have the truth, why then would you feel a need to investigate further? 🤷
 
=Genesius;6315230]Have you ever heard the expression, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If you are under the assumption that you already have the truth, why then would you feel a need to investigate further? 🤷
***My dear friend in Christ,

By virtue of the fact that non-Catholics are posting an asking questions on a CATHOLIC FORUM we can know, as is reasonable, that they are not experiencing COMPLETE an TRUE peace in there religious practices.[That friend is God knocking at there heart]:D***

**Jer.31: 33 **“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

**Heb.8: 10 **"This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:

I will put my laws into their minds,and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people."

Two additional factors are at work.
  1. Divine Providence has led them here for a purpose.
  2. There is but a single truth on EVERY ISSUE
 
Have you ever heard the expression, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If you are under the assumption that you already have the truth, why then would you feel a need to investigate further? 🤷
Yes, I have heard of the expression but can’t find a scriptural basis for it nor can I. or anyone else for that matter, place their eternal fate in it. Can you imagine standing in judgement before God and offering, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” as your reason for not converting? Besides, after reading reading these forums it should be obvious to anyone that something in protestantism is indeed broke and needs fixing.
 
Yes, I have heard of the expression but can’t find a scriptural basis for it nor can I. or anyone else for that matter, place their eternal fate in it. Can you imagine standing in judgement before God and offering, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” as your reason for not converting? Besides, after reading reading these forums it should be obvious to anyone that something in protestantism is indeed broke and needs fixing.
Okay…you may have a point about protestants who lurk here. However, the term ‘invincible ignorance’ has to mean something, doesn’t it? There are plenty of well-intentioned protestants who believe they have the truth, but don’t. They have a genuine love for Christ, continue serving God to the best of their ability with love and faith in Christ, and if they are going to hell in spite of that then something is terribly wrong! I personally don’t hold the fact that they are not Catholic against them, and ultimately their fate is in God’s hands…not yours or mine!

By the way, what I meant by “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” might be better paraphrased, “If I don’t KNOW it’s broke, I don’t KNOW to fix it!” (and I’m sure you know that I am only speaking metaphorically. I’m sure if we were standing before God none of us would be able to utter such nonsense).

I was a protestant for more years than I’ve been Catholic. The majority of that time I never gave the Catholic Church a single glance. I was too busy trying to serve God in the capacity I was in. I have always loved the Lord with all my heart. In the early days if I had lurked in a group like this (I don’t know why I would have) I probably would have dismissed the Catholics in here as misguided and in ‘invincible ignorance’. However, in my later years when I finally got the Catholic virus the Holy Spirit was working on my heart to lead me home, and I guess that is my point. Until the Holy Spirit deems the right time for the individual, and until they respond, they will unlikely ever come into full communion. Particularly when there are Catholics who would rather ‘win the argument’ than to help bring souls home.
 
To diverge just slightly, when facing the average Protestant, or especially fundamentalist, on apostolic succession (or most any other topic, actually), we know there are huge volumes of post-Biblical writings of the Fathers to draw on. The problem of course, is that they won’t recognize those – at least not without a little help. One technique that can work wonders is to try and pin them down on some post-Biblical-era time frame they will accept as when “The Church” was still “uncorrupted” – in other words, will they consider writings up to the year 150AD? If not, why not?

Problem is, a lot of Protestants -especially the more “Bible-based” flavor, have a conception of history that is almost mythical – that the events of the New Testament occurred in some sort of alternate universe separate from our own history. A woman I knew told me this – she and her husband had been to Israel, and was telling her mother in law about visiting Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and Galilee, etc. Mom-in-law didn’t believe her! “How could you have been there? That’s where the Lord was!” Granted this involved a southern-fried deep-woods rube, but I think most Prot.s really are guilty of this in some smaller degree.

BTW in reply to an earlier post: sorry, but the Anglican church is Protestant, no matter what you might think about the validity of its apostolic succcession.
 
Someone alluded to 2 Timothy 2:2:
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
This is probably the strongest biblical passage in support of apostolic succession because it contemplates four generations of believers.

Another biblical foundation for apostolic succession that no one has yet mentioned is John 20:21:
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
The key phrase is “as the Father has sent Me.” This implies that the role of the apostles is to be the role of Christ. If there were no successors to the apostles, then the church would have died along with the last apostle.

Frankly I am surprised that this would be an issue raised by a non-Catholic inasmuch as apostolic succession is not something that is discussed in non-Catholic circles (the Anglicans being a prominent exception). It’s not something they think about, even to try to explain why they don’t have it.
 
Okay…you may have a point about protestants who lurk here. However, the term ‘invincible ignorance’ has to mean something, doesn’t it? There are plenty of well-intentioned protestants who believe they have the truth, but don’t. They have a genuine love for Christ, continue serving God to the best of their ability with love and faith in Christ, and if they are going to hell in spite of that then something is terribly wrong! I personally don’t hold the fact that they are not Catholic against them, and ultimately their fate is in God’s hands…not yours or mine!

I agree and many protestants use this as some sort of excuse for remaining protestant. After all, to make that leap from protestantism to Catholicism entails sacrifice and at times, very great sacrifice indeed. But somehow Jesus words in Matthew 7:21-25 always come to mind:

"21 "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ 24 “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; 25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.” Mt 7:21-25

Of course we know that Jesus established His Church on a Rock and that it will withstand the rain and the wind and the floods but Jesus’ words in that passage are very chilling and I can’t help but think of all the protestant pastors who tell people that all one need do is to confess Jesus with their mouth and believe in their heart that He is Lord and they will be saved. This is an aberration of Paul’s teaching in Romans 10:9:

“9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” [Ro 10:9]

Romans 10:9 was never intended to be the summation of Christian salvation. Paul’s writing was remedial. He had already preached orally and laid the ground work in every locality that he wrote to. His writings addressed specific problem areas that the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. encountered. Yet protestant pastors, lacking an oral tradition, take Paul’s writing as the totality of the christian message.

I once asked a theologian about the church’s position on protestants going to heaven. In a nut shell the answer is that while the church holds out the possibility of heaven for protestants there are some hurdles along the way. The biggest one is, of course, sin and the expiation of it. Only a perfect act of contrition will remove mortal sin outside of the scarament of Reconciliation.
By the way, what I meant by “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” might be better paraphrased, “If I don’t KNOW it’s broke, I don’t KNOW to fix it!” (and I’m sure you know that I am only speaking metaphorically. I’m sure if we were standing before God none of us would be able to utter such nonsense).
But Is it a matter of black or white or are there shades of gray? Does something have to be totally broke before one knows something is wrong and needs fixing? Now I can understand the great difficulty that someone who has been spoon fed anti Catholic preaching all his life having great problems in realizing that the very thing he has been taught to hate by supposedly men of God, is the true church of God. But is it insurmountable? I don’t think so.
I was a protestant for more years than I’ve been Catholic. The majority of that time I never gave the Catholic Church a single glance. I was too busy trying to serve God in the capacity I was in. I have always loved the Lord with all my heart. In the early days if I had lurked in a group like this (I don’t know why I would have) I probably would have dismissed the Catholics in here as misguided and in ‘invincible ignorance’. However, in my later years when I finally got the Catholic virus the Holy Spirit was working on my heart to lead me home, and I guess that is my point. Until the Holy Spirit deems the right time for the individual, and until they respond, they will unlikely ever come into full communion. Particularly when there are Catholics who would rather ‘win the argument’ than to help bring souls home.
First of all let me say, Welcome home! I am a revert myself. As for the workings of the Spirit, I don’t think the Holy Spirit takes a coffee break or a day off with anyone. I believe He is constantly working on people’s hearts for He is after all the Spirit of Truth. So the problem is not that the Holy Spirit is not working on people. The problem is that people are not receptive to the Spirit’s workings. How many protestants come on this and other forums with the intention of trying to convert Catholics from the alleged “Whore of Babylon” only to run into a theological buzz saw? Hopefully. they leave here with a least something to think about. If so, what they do next is very crucial, I think, to their salvation.
 
Someone alluded to 2 Timothy 2:2: This is probably the strongest biblical passage in support of apostolic succession because it contemplates four generations of believers.

Another biblical foundation for apostolic succession that no one has yet mentioned is John 20:21:

"So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

The key phrase is “as the Father has sent Me.” This implies that the role of the apostles is to be the role of Christ. If there were no successors to the apostles, then the church would have died along with the last apostle.

Frankly I am surprised that this would be an issue raised by a non-Catholic inasmuch as apostolic succession is not something that is discussed in non-Catholic circles (the Anglicans being a prominent exception). It’s not something they think about, even to try to explain why they don’t have it.
Yes and there is more to that verse than what you state. Ask the question, why was Jesus sent by the Father? The answer, of course, is that Jesus was sent to save mankind from sin. So Jesus is now sending the Apostles to do the same thing but they are going to do it not by dying on the cross as did Jesus. Jesus’ death reconciled mankind with God once and for all. Rather, the Apostles are going to save mankind from sin by applying Jesus’ works on the cross to men by forgiving their sins. This is stated in John’s gospel for John 20:21 says:

"21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

But the very next verse we read:

" 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [John 20:22-23]
 
Inkaneer wrote: “First of all let me say, Welcome home! I am a revert myself. As for the workings of the Spirit, I don’t think the Holy Spirit takes a coffee break or a day off with anyone. I believe He is constantly working on people’s hearts for He is after all the Spirit of Truth. So the problem is not that the Holy Spirit is not working on people. The problem is that people are not receptive to the Spirit’s workings. How many protestants come on this and other forums with the intention of trying to convert Catholics from the alleged “Whore of Babylon” only to run into a theological buzz saw? Hopefully. they leave here with a least something to think about. If so, what they do next is very crucial, I think, to their salvation”

First of all let me say thank you for the welcome home. I agree with you that the Holy Spirit does not take a coffee break (I’m not even sure if He likes coffee). I was not trying to imply that. Yes, of course He is always working on a person’s heart, but people are not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit knows this. I’m sure the Holy Spirit knows when it’s time for a person to know the entire truth of the Catholic faith. For instance, it probably would have been too traumatic for me in my earlier anti-Catholic years to come to a knowledge of that truth, but as events unfolded in my life I became more willing to respond to that call later in life, whereas someone else might respond much sooner. I don’t think the Holy Spirit would put on someone more than they were able to handle at any given time. He knows when a person is ready to respond to the call, unlike us as human beings.

It’s like back when I was a fundamentalist we were taught the urgency of ‘saving souls’ to the point that I’m sure we turned away more people from Christianity than brought them in because we expected them to just accept everything we threw at them all at once rather than working on them gradually. In other words, we were taught in essence to take on the role of the Holy Spirit, although none of us were omniscient.
 
By the way, just for clarification…I have never said, nor meant to imply that I personally don’t believe in Apostolic Succession, nor that I believe it is not at least implicitly biblical, just that I don’t believe it is an explicit teaching in Scripture, such as the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist would be (especially John 6). Yes, there are passages that one could imply succession (which is not necessarily the same as Apostolic Authority… yes, to a Catholic, but from a purely objective viewpoint, not). For instance, every response I have read on this thread where the poster is convinced about Apostolic Succession (as am I) they automatically seem to use logic to get to their conclusion rather than allowing the passage to speak to their conclusion.

EXAMPLE: Someone might say something like, “It’s absurd to think that the Church ceased to exist after the Apostles all died, or that Apostolic Authority died with them!” Yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but you will never find that explicitly stated in the Scriptures. The best that you will find is that Apostolic Authority was given to others within the generation (and perhaps the next generation) of the Apostles. But as some have suggested, not in a 3rd or 4th generation. Nonetheless, just because it is not EXPLICITLY biblical means nothing. We believe in the assumption of Mary and you will never find that anywhere in Scripture, because we acknowledge Sacred Tradition to be just as authoritative as Sacred Scripture (which actually IS Sacred Tradition). Thank you, thank you very much [Elvis style]. 😃

Now, having said all that, I am humble enough to admit I could be wrong. But I’m not (just kidding…;)).
 
EXAMPLE: Someone might say something like, “It’s absurd to think that the Church ceased to exist after the Apostles all died, or that Apostolic Authority died with them!” Yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but you will never find that explicitly stated in the Scriptures. The best that you will find is that Apostolic Authority was given to others within the generation (and perhaps the next generation) of the Apostles. But as some have suggested, not in a 3rd or 4th generation. Nonetheless, just because it is not EXPLICITLY biblical means nothing. We believe in the assumption of Mary and you will never find that anywhere in Scripture, because we acknowledge Sacred Tradition to be just as authoritative as Sacred Scripture (which actually IS Sacred Tradition). Thank you, thank you very much [Elvis style]. 😃

Now, having said all that, I am humble enough to admit I could be wrong. But I’m not (just kidding…;)).
The problem with taking the position that “…Apostolic Authority was given to others within the generation (and perhaps the next generation) of the Apostles. But as some have suggested, not in a 3rd or 4th generation.” is that leaves a 300+ year gap before the canon of scripture is finalized. That means there is no authority behind the selection of the canon. It is, at best, just a guess. So where does that leave protestants and their claim of sola scriptura? I always challenge protestants to prove that the Epistle to Philomen is inspired. They can’t do it. There is no theological doctrines in the writing. There is absolutely nothing in the letter to even hint at inspiration. Yet protestants accept it as inspired and the reason they do, although they won’t admit it, is because some Catholic bishops said it was.
 
Hold on a minute. The replacement of Judas with Matthias was not just for the Apostolic age. If you read the scripture. Peter quotes two Psalms one of them being the one that says “let another take his place.” The KJV [which your non Catholic friend would probably accept] has that verse [Acts 1:20] as “and his bishoprick let another take.” The RSV has that same verse as "…and ‘His office let another take.’ . The point is there is no time restricion placed here by scripture limiting this to the Apostolic Age.

So Matthias was elected to an office and he was a bishop not an Apostle. Remember Judas died before he was "sent"and the very definition of ‘Apostle’ is "one who is sent. All of the Apostles were bishops or episcopoi [overseers] and they wielded authority [Acts 6:1-7]. Now Acts 1:26 does say “…and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” But being enrolled [the KJV says numbered] does not mean he was an Apostle. If it did then why does scripture say “…enrolled with the eleven Apostles” and not “…enrolled with the twelve Apostles”? For he would be the twelth Apostle [and Paul would be the thirteenth. Matthias was a bishop and those who succeeded the Apostles were also bishops.
[/quote]
 
Hold on a minute. The replacement of Judas with Matthias was not just for the Apostolic age. If you read the scripture. Peter quotes two Psalms one of them being the one that says “let another take his place.” The KJV [which your non Catholic friend would probably accept] has that verse [Acts 1:20] as “and his bishoprick let another take.” The RSV has that same verse as "…and ‘His office let another take.’ . The point is there is no time restricion placed here by scripture limiting this to the Apostolic Age.

So Matthias was elected to an office and he was a bishop not an Apostle. Remember Judas died before he was "sent"and the very definition of ‘Apostle’ is "one who is sent. All of the Apostles were bishops or episcopoi [overseers] and they wielded authority [Acts 6:1-7]. Now Acts 1:26 does say “…and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” But being enrolled [the KJV says numbered] does not mean he was an Apostle. If it did then why does scripture say “…enrolled with the eleven Apostles” and not “…enrolled with the twelve Apostles”? For he would be the twelth Apostle [and Paul would be the thirteenth. Matthias was a bishop and those who succeeded the Apostles were also bishops.
[/quote]
 
The problem with taking the position that “…Apostolic Authority was given to others within the generation (and perhaps the next generation) of the Apostles. But as some have suggested, not in a 3rd or 4th generation.” is that leaves a 300+ year gap before the canon of scripture is finalized. That means there is no authority behind the selection of the canon. It is, at best, just a guess. So where does that leave protestants and their claim of sola scriptura? I always challenge protestants to prove that the Epistle to Philomen is inspired. They can’t do it. There is no theological doctrines in the writing. There is absolutely nothing in the letter to even hint at inspiration. Yet protestants accept it as inspired and the reason they do, although they won’t admit it, is because some Catholic bishops said it was.
Yes, but what you don’t understand, Inkaneer, (and I’m obviously being sarcastic here) is that God went away for a few hundred years and then came down and zapped some ‘Christian’ men (God forbid, they were Catholic bishops!) with the Holy Spirit to canonize Scripture, then went away again until the protestant movement. No, wait, I think what really happened was that Jesus had cases of little Gideon pocket KJV NT’s and handed them out to the Apostles to give to the multitudes…yeah, that’s it!

Sorry, I know I shouldn’t be so cynical, but it all just builds up sometimes and I have to laugh about it all.😃 I think it was St. Thomas of Aquinas who near the end of his life said something like, “It’s all just straw!”

Btw, is Philomen some hidden extrabiblical letter, or were you meaning Philemon? 😉
 
"inkaneer:
, post:46, topic:186809"]
Yes, I have heard of the expression but can’t find a scriptural basis for it nor can I. or anyone else for that matter, place their eternal fate in it. Can you imagine standing in judgement before God and offering, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” as your reason for not converting? Besides, after reading reading these forums it should be obvious to anyone that something in protestantism is indeed broke and needs fixing.
Excellnt response:thumbsup:

Besides, if One is Not a Catholic they are BROKE, and just are not yet aware of it:rolleyes:

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
Lots of good answers, thanks for the education. I’d like to share a thought; in my very humble opinion, I believe a very important aspect of the answer to this question is missing from this thread. Before I share my scriptural thoughts, it’s important to understand a basic Catholic teaching found in the Catechism, article 110:

"In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

Now to scripture (NAB);** Mt 16:18-19a**

*“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom (emphasis added) of heaven.” *

To better understand “the sacred authors’ intention” of what it meant in Old Testament times to give someone the keys to the kingdom, we have to go to the Old Testament and Catechism and look at three things.

Is 22:19-23

“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.”

Rv 3:7

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open,”

Catechism 553

“Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.”

So we have reference to “The Keys,” but what does that really mean. In Old Testament times the “Keys” to the kingdom represented the authority of the steward who is placed by the king over the household or kingdom (I think the Hebrew or Aramaic term for this person was Albiet). This is a permanent position. As appointed by God, this man is responsible for the entire household, “the whole weight of his father’s house,” as Isaiah says. The keys are a symbol of his power to open the gates of heaven to men. “The house of David” is the earthly kingdom, David’s royal line that led to Jesus. He will sit on the throne of David in heaven and rule forever. As King, he owns the keys to the kingdom and holds them in heaven. Now this kingdom has a sort of outpost on earth; The Church. And before Jesus left earth for heaven, he entrusted someone with the power of the keys on earth. That “Albiet” was Peter, chief of the apostles. It’s important to note, the keys existed before Peter and they continued to exist after his martyrdom. The keys denote the office, not the person, and just like in Old Testament times when the key was handed down from generation to generation, the keys Jesus gave Peter have been handed down to Peter’s successors for nearly 2,000 years. (Information “borrowed” from Jeff Cavins bible study program “Adventures in Matthew, The King and His Kingdom”)

For me, once I came to understand, and more importantly believe, this truth, I found I had no more excuses when it came to the question of authority; I could no longer be a “cafeteria” Catholic and pick and choose which “rules” I wanted to follow. GOD gave Peter and his successors the authority!
 
Thank you, David Eastman, for that very thorough well thought out intelligent answer. I actually think everyone in this thread gave good answers. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Btw, I am not a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ (unless I happen to be in a cafeteria…LOL). I am, however, still growing in my Catholicism. Godbless. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top