Jesus treats Peter and John differently when speeking about them

[Tom]

2 Kings 5:1 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David in Hebron, saying: Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2 Moreover yesterday also and the day before, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that did lead out and bring in Israel: and the Lord said to thee: Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel.

The next Scripture is too long to post, but PLEASE read it,
2 Kings 7

 

[mercygate]

DavidB:

No, the keys ARE the power to bind and loose . . . again, here’s Augustine, “The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins.”

It can’t be stated any plainer than that. Argue with Augustine if you’d like. But he’s the great Doctor of your Church.

David

David? what about that phrase “in the person of Peter?” To say that the Church receives the power of binding and loosing sins is true. That is not the same thing as saying that everyone who accepts Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior has the right to exercise the power of the Keys. They are exercised in communion with the See of Peter.

If you can, try to detach yourself from 500 years of Romophobia and imagine an undivided Church. Imagine a Church without the great schism. A Church without the Protestant Reformation. Would the Petrine position be as firmly asserted as it is today? Likely not, because the need for such assertion would be less. Even so, the very early Church looked to Rome because of her legacy as the See of Peter.

 

[mercygate]

DavidB:

Anywhere Peter parked his butt?

 

[Scalia]

DavidB:

Anywhere Peter parked his butt?

Pretty funny…no, really. The Chair of Peter echos the same authority given to the Chair of Moses in Matthew’s Gospel.

 

[Tom]

Just a few foreshadowings fro the OT for the NT of the “feeding” of Isreal:

Ezechiel 34:23 AND I WILL SET UP ONE SHEPHERD OVER THEM, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.;
Jeremias 3:15; And I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.
Genesis 1:30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
Genesis 29:7 And Jacob said: There is yet much day remaining, neither is it time to bring the flocks into the folds again: first give the sheep drink, and so lead them back to feed.
Genesis 30:31 And Laban said: What shall I give thee? But he said: I require nothing: but if thou wilt do what I demand, I will feed, and keep thy sheep again.
Genesis 37:13 Israel said to him: Thy brethren feed the sheep in Sichem: come, I will send thee to them;
Genesis 46:32 And the men are shepherds, and their occupation is to feed cattle: their flocks and herds, and all they have, they have brought with them.
Genesis 50:21 Fear not: I will feed you and your children. And he comforted them, and spoke gently and mildly.
1 Kings 17:15 David went, and returned from Saul, to feed his father’s flock at Bethlehem.

 

[Sacramentalist]

I don’t know of any Catholic scholar or theologian wou would not concede that, when Jesus entrusted his Beloved Disciple to John, he was, in the literal sense, merely entrusting her to him personally.

Others have given this passage a mystical interpretation, and that’s perfectly fine. But Mary’s spiritual motherhood is not contingent on this or any other Biblical verse. Her motherhoof of Christians is simply the logical consequence of her Divine Motherhood of Christ and her role as the New Eve.

 

[PhilNeri]

Is it just me, or have we gotten WAY off topic here? If Tom, David, & Ryan want to continue their discussion on another thread, that’s great. But lets concentrate on the original question unless it was answered. Angainor, are you satisfied with the present answers (before they got off topic) or do you want us to try again?

 

[Tom]

PhilNeri:

Is it just me, or have we gotten WAY off topic here? If Tom, David, & Ryan want to continue their discussion on another thread, that’s great. But lets concentrate on the original question unless it was answered. Angainor, are you satisfied with the present answers (before they got off topic) or do you want us to try again?

Sorry Phil, and everyone, we do get carried away in the moment at times. Please forgive us.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you, Tom

 

[DavidB]

mercygate:

David? what about that phrase “in the person of Peter?” To say that the Church receives the power of binding and loosing sins is true. That is not the same thing as saying that everyone who accepts Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior has the right to exercise the power of the Keys. They are exercised in communion with the See of Peter.

If you can, try to detach yourself from 500 years of Romophobia and imagine an undivided Church. Imagine a Church without the great schism. A Church without the Protestant Reformation. Would the Petrine position be as firmly asserted as it is today? Likely not, because the need for such assertion would be less. Even so, the very early Church looked to Rome because of her legacy as the See of Peter.

My post was addressing Tom and Ryan’s insistence that the “keys” are separate from the “powers to bind and loose”. I believe they are one in the same thing, as does Augustine. Jesus did extend the power to bind and loose, and thus the keys, to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18, so it can’t be stated they are for Peter alone to exercise.

David

 

[DavidB]

PhilNeri:

Is it just me, or have we gotten WAY off topic here? If Tom, David, & Ryan want to continue their discussion on another thread, that’s great. But lets concentrate on the original question unless it was answered. Angainor, are you satisfied with the present answers (before they got off topic) or do you want us to try again?

I didn’t think it was off-topic at all.

The original post said, “However, when Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom to the Rock, that absolutely cannot be interpreted to mean anyone other than Peter himself. In other words, Jesus was not giving the keys to any faithful servant, but to the specific faithful servant to whom he was speaking.”

But it sounds like it’s time to wrap it up anyway. I think we’re in circle mode where we each keep repeating the same thing using slightly different words. It’s an argument with a long history I’m afraid and we’re not likely to resolve it here.

David

 

[mercygate]

DavidB:

My post was addressing Tom and Ryan’s insistence that the “keys” are separate from the “powers to bind and loose”. I believe they are one in the same thing, as does Augustine. Jesus did extend the power to bind and loose, and thus the keys, to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18, so it can’t be stated they are for Peter alone to exercise.

David

Right. Every time I go to Confession, and the Priest raises his hand to make the sign of the cross in absolution, he exercises the power of the keys. It is an apostolic power received from the bishop as part of the episcopal ministry. To that extent, Orthodox bishops not in communion with Rome also exercise the power of the Keys. But they received that power from their original communion with Rome. The power of the keys is an apostolic power, it is not a general one. And even as an apostolic power, it is exercised in union with the See of Peter.

 

[DavidB]

mercygate:

Right. Every time I go to Confession, and the Priest raises his hand to make the sign of the cross in absolution, he exercises the power of the keys. It is an apostolic power received from the bishop as part of the episcopal ministry. To that extent, Orthodox bishops not in communion with Rome also exercise the power of the Keys. But they received that power from their original communion with Rome. The power of the keys is an apostolic power, it is not a general one. And even as an apostolic power, it is exercised in union with the See of Peter.

I completely agree, Mercygate, with the exception of the union with the See of Peter part. The union and authority is with Christ.

David

 

[Eden]

DavidB:

As for John representing the Church, that’s not consistent with what actually followed. Jesus was doing a very practical thing. His love for his mother led him to place her into his beloved disciples care for the remainder of her life. Tradition holds that John took her in and cared for her 'til her death.

David

By the way, this in and of itself proves that Jesus did not have “brothers” who were born to the Virgin Mary to care for her.

 

[Tom]

Thank youavid B; Mercygate; PhilNeri; Sacramentalist; Scalia; RyanL; Cathlicnlovinit; Adventistnomore; Grace and Glory; Angainor; speedy5; jimmy; & jburgherr, and any i have missed. It has been a wonderful exchange of thoughts, may it bring us all closer to our Lord.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you all,
Tom

 

[mercygate]

DavidB:

I completely agree, Mercygate, with the exception of the union with the See of Peter part. The union and authority is with Christ.

David

Of course the union is with Christ – and with the Father. And that unity is maintained most completely here on earth in union with the one whom Christ appointed as Chief Apostle over his visible Body the Church. The Church.

As Jesus had a physical body when he walked among us as a man, so he builds his Church as an identifiable, physical Body. The history and the charism of the Catholic Church come to us in an unbroken stream from the Last Supper, from Calvary, from the upper room, from the bloody sands of the arena . . . .

 

[Scalia]

DavidB:

My post was addressing Tom and Ryan’s insistence that the “keys” are separate from the “powers to bind and loose”. I believe they are one in the same thing, as does Augustine. Jesus did extend the power to bind and loose, and thus the keys, to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18, so it can’t be stated they are for Peter alone to exercise.

David

I’m sure you guys will correct me if I’m wrong but don’t a plurality of the ECF’s separate the two? The power to bind and loose was essentially a rabbinical term of art for excercising discipline over Church followers. The “keys” are given to Peter ONLY. The former was given to both. Is this just an oversight by Christ?

Don’t the ECF state Isaiah 22 & the “keys” support dynastic succession of ruling houses and adminstrative authority of the same, which is separate and distinct from Church discipline?

 

[Fiat]

DavidB:

My post was addressing Tom and Ryan’s insistence that the “keys” are separate from the “powers to bind and loose”. I believe they are one in the same thing, as does Augustine. Jesus did extend the power to bind and loose, and thus the keys, to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18, so it can’t be stated they are for Peter alone to exercise.

David

DavidB:
If your position is correct in that every Christian has the power to exercise apostolic authority of binding and loosing, then how does your universal, invisible church deal with the situation in which one member from a non-Catholic church firmly believes his conclusion that loving homosexual relationships are not condemned while another member has the same heart-felt, spirit-led conviction that homosexuality is condemned. Is there a way, under your system, to find truth? Or is the matter one of relativism?

Fiat

 

[Scalia]

DavidB:

The truth is the exact opposite interpretations should apply - here’s why we know that for sure.

When Jesus gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16:19, he says "
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Jesus then extends those same keys to ALL of the disciples when in chapter 18 he says, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Another major confirmation that Peter isn’t the only one the church is built upon comes from Ephesians 2:20 when Paul says, “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” Note that the foundation is ALL of the apostles and prophets, not just Peter. The only individual singled out for special recognition is the chief cornerstone, which is Jesus, as he should be.

No other proof is needed to know that Peter, while first among equals, is not the sole rock upon which the church is built. He was simply the first among those who were recognized. ALL of the apostles AND prophets share equal weight as the foundation of the Church. Scripture can’t be more clear on this.

As for John representing the Church, that’s not consistent with what actually followed. Jesus was doing a very practical thing. His love for his mother led him to place her into his beloved disciples care for the remainder of her life. Tradition holds that John took her in and cared for her 'til her death.

David

David, please show me the word “Keys” or “Key” in Matthew 18.

 

[DavidB]

Scalia:

David, please show me the word “Keys” or “Key” in Matthew 18.

PLease read the entire thread for yourself. I’m not rehashing it because you’re jumping in after it’s concluded to argue a point that’s already been made.

David

 

[Fiat]

DavidB:

PLease read the entire thread for yourself. I’m not rehashing it because you’re jumping in after it’s concluded to argue a point that’s already been made.

David

Scalia:
I’m glad you reposted DavidB’s …[ahem]… exegises … of Matt 16 and 18. I get a kick out of it every time.

Fiat