Key vs keys

[steve_b]

If people would please read my posts that would note that I accept Aphraates said this.

He is the only one.

However in effect this one instance in 2,000 years is silence. Unless people can show me other ECFs

Hasn’t anyone up to this time shown you quotes of ECF’s describing the keys that Peter receicved besides Aphraates ? The quote from Aphraates would agree with the the following

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.”—Ephraim, Homily 4:1,(A.D. 373),JUR,I:11

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Pope Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis (Acts 9:32-34).” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (“Catechetical Lectures” c. 350 A.D*.)*

“They (the Novatian heretics) have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’” St. Ambrose of Milan (“On Penance,” 388 A.D.)

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.’” St. Augustine of Hippo (“Sermon 295,” c. 411 A.D.)

COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [a.d. 431]).
we can see from the quotes above, how ECF’s understood what Jesus said, and today 2000 years later, we can see how that continued with the popes of Rome and the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

Okay I have read the article.

There are two points to make

a) where in that article is there a link between the key and the keys?

Whether key or keys, the context is authority coming from the king to the one the king chooses.
M:

and

b) the use of this article here makes this is a typical ‘Peter Syndrome’ article. Let me explain first what this syndrome is. Catholics in reading ANYTHING about Peter read it in the context of their own beliefs, not the beliefs of the person who wrote the article.

Thus, if Peter is praised Catholics think it confirms their own view of Peter. It is one of the most appalling things I have found in Catholic apologetics… a total lack of context. However that’s for another day.

Are you denying Peter had successors?
M:

Specifically what has been missed here is that this article is by someone who is part of the Syriac Orthodox Church. They believe that Peter founded THEIR church. Naturally enough they find great praise for Peter.

Do they follow the papacy? Not that I’m aware of.
Do they believe that Peter, in going on to Rome took his special charism to Rome as well? Not that I’m aware of

Depends which Church in Syria one is looking at

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

melkite.org/
M:

Citing this article would be like me citing a Moslem article to prove that they believe that Jesus is the Son of God; given that both Islam and Christianity believes that Jesus was born of a Virgin. The gap of course between their claims that he is special to Christianity’s own views of Christ are immense. Not quite as large here, but there’s an obvious gap between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church - else the author of the article is a hypocrite for willingly staying apart from a church you think he believes is the possessor of the keys, and not his own.

Bp John above, disputes your point.

It’s why after several days of this thread people cite to me a Church Father’s work I already accept, and then go on to speculate about things and missing the point of the OP - which is that aside from Aphrahat no other ECF makes the connection.

You’re reading back into history your own disconnect, that wasn’t there at the time.
M:

I have heard that Ephrem wrote something lyrical that makes the connection too, but I’ve never seen it.

was it by chance the one I quoted previously? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9736113&postcount=59

here’s the expanded quote

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
M:

That’s the purpose of the OP, to find evidence from the ECFs that make the connection between the singular key of David (Isaiah) with the several keys of Peter (Matthew)

At no place have I denied that Peter was given keys.

Several posts have argued that he had, something I haven’t denied!!!

Again, whether key or keys, the issue is authority and office. You’re trying to make a distinction over singular in the OT and plural in the NT as if one doesn’t connect with the other. The OT reference is a type and shadow of the fulfillment that would happen in the NT.

 

[steve_b]

here’s the expanded quote

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Forgot to add an additional source, Benedict XV, using that quote of Ephraims, in an encyclical [Ref footnote 42]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_05101920_principi-apostolorum-petro_en.html

 

[MarkInOregon]

Okay I have read the article.

There are two points to make

a) where in that article is there a link between the key and the keys?

and

b) the use of this article here makes this is a typical ‘Peter Syndrome’ article. Let me explain first what this syndrome is. Catholics in reading ANYTHING about Peter read it in the context of their own beliefs, not the beliefs of the person who wrote the article.

Thus, if Peter is praised Catholics think it confirms their own view of Peter. It is one of the most appalling things I have found in Catholic apologetics… a total lack of context. However that’s for another day.

Specifically what has been missed here is that this article is by someone who is part of the Syriac Orthodox Church. They believe that Peter founded THEIR church. Naturally enough they find great praise for Peter.

Do they follow the papacy? Not that I’m aware of.

Do they believe that Peter, in going on to Rome took his special charism to Rome as well? Not that I’m aware of

Citing this article would be like me citing a Moslem article to prove that they believe that Jesus is the Son of God; given that both Islam and Christianity believes that Jesus was born of a Virgin. The gap of course between their claims that he is special to Christianity’s own views of Christ are immense. Not quite as large here, but there’s an obvious gap between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church - else the author of the article is a hypocrite for willingly staying apart from a church you think he believes is the possessor of the keys, and not his own.

It’s why after several days of this thread people cite to me a Church Father’s work I already accept, and then go on to speculate about things and missing the point of the OP - which is that aside from Aphrahat no other ECF makes the connection.

I have heard that Ephrem wrote something lyrical that makes the connection too, but I’ve never seen it.

That’s the purpose of the OP, to find evidence from the ECFs that make the connection between the singular key of David (Isaiah) with the several keys of Peter (Matthew)

At no place have I denied that Peter was given keys.

Several posts have argued that he had, something I haven’t denied!!!

Please tell us what you think the key(s) mean or symbolize and the reasons for your belief.

Thank you,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

The challenge is a flawed one, given you’ve set up artificial goal posts for a time period. I mentioned that over the 2,000 years of the church only one ECF has explicitly linked the key with the keys.

Are you extending the ECF’s to the year 2000? I thought E stood for early–doesn’t that give us a time period? Can we have an ECF in 2000 making the link? If not isn’t your “2000 years of the church” rather misleading?

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

You don’t have a point.

You say you agree with me, that there’s silence from the Church Fathers.

That’s what I noted. You keep ‘noting’ things I already have said.

Given that there’s silence from the Church Fathers then the modern Catholic apologists I have mentioned are coming up with a new/novel exegesis.

Are you simply not reading the posts, not comprehending the posts, purposefully ignoring them and acting huffy and accusing toward others? Your tone is…

One ECF mentioned it --yes, you acknowledged that–St Francis de Sales mentioned it–you acknowledged that and yes its not in your time period, but he mentions it–that makes your statement that “modern Catholic apologists…are coming up with a new/novel exegesis” --false. They are simply taking up something that was presented centuries earlier–and examining it and expounding on it–they didn’t invent it out of whole cloth.

I take silence on the matter as ‘consensus’.

What exactly are you claiming here? Consensus on what?

If the Church Fathers didn’t teach it then I don’t just make stuff up. Perhaps you do?

You’ve already been presented with two beliefs another poster claims you hold that the ECF’s don’t teach (hold a concensus on)–but you refuse to address the matter–dismissing it is not addressing it–or perhaps you don’t hold those beliefs?

Note: At no point am I criticising this as your belief. If you want to have novel teachings, that’s entirely up to you.

Your calling it novel doesn’t make it so–you’ve been shown that the orgins of the belief have roots in history. You are free to think that those orgins are insufficient for the belief–and to hold to your own belief–but please stop acting like someone pulled the idea out of thin air yesterday.

And please be honest. Read what you posted–it is a criticism and from the tone of your posts (and I apologize in advance if I have read an unitended tone into your posts) I think you intended it as a shot–kind of like saying: “Hey I’m not criticising your belief–if you want to believe in unicorns that’s entirely up to you.”

Peace,
Mark

 

[Montalban]

Forgot to add an additional source, Benedict XV, using that quote of Ephraims, in an encyclical [Ref footnote 42]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_05101920_principi-apostolorum-petro_en.html

I don’t deny Peter had the keys. The site you cite has nothing (unless I missed it) linking the OT key with the keys

 

[Montalban]

Are you extending the ECF’s to the year 2000? I thought E stood for early–doesn’t that give us a time period? Can we have an ECF in 2000 making the link? If not isn’t your “2000 years of the church” rather misleading?

Peace,
Mark

It’s another semantics argument in lieu of no evidence from re: the OP

If you have any church teachings in that 2,000 years, I’d like to have a look

 

[Montalban]

Please tell us what you think the key(s) mean or symbolize and the reasons for your belief.

Thank you,
Mark

I already noted this.

I ask a question. And Catholics here rather than answer that answer questions I didn’t ask, or seek me to justify my own position first.

Sorry for challenging people

 

[Montalban]

Whether key or keys, the context is authority coming from the king to the one the king chooses.

The context is what the church teaches, not what seems to be interesting to you or others.

Are you denying Peter had successors?

We would differ in ‘where’ he had successors.

Depends which Church in Syria one is looking at

I addressed the correct one

You’re reading back into history your own disconnect, that wasn’t there at the time.

No. There is no connect.

I understand that you feel that NO EVIDENCE for a connection means one exists.

was it by chance the one I quoted previously? forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9736113&postcount=59

I can’t say. There was nothing in that quote talking about the key of David

here’s the expanded quote

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

That still doesn’t help

Again, whether key or keys, the issue is authority and office. You’re trying to make a distinction over singular in the OT and plural in the NT as if one doesn’t connect with the other. The OT reference is a type and shadow of the fulfillment that would happen in the NT.

They are different. They are DISTINCT key is not keys.

If someone loans you $2 will you give them back $1 and say that there’s no distinction between the two?

A key of David is not the keys of Peter UNLESS you can evidence that they are

Again I accept that you are in effect saying “Hey, there’s no evidence for the connection but they are connected because they are and anyone who disagrees must prove the opposite”

It’s like saying “We know the Church Fathers believed it because we have no evidence of them commenting on it”

 

[Montalban]

Are you simply not reading the posts, not comprehending the posts, purposefully ignoring them and acting huffy and accusing toward others? Your tone is…

Let’s not personalise things.

One ECF mentioned it --yes, you acknowledged that–St Francis de Sales mentioned it–you acknowledged that and yes its not in your time period,

That’s not to properly state my argument.

One ECF mentioned it. Full stop.

No other EARLY or LATE or whenever Church Fathers mentioned it.

De Salles did, in one obscure work more than 1,000 years later.

No one else in between.

Then when De Salles work is more widely known in the 1800s you can a boom of commentators, and more recently Catholics following those Protestant writers.

but he mentions it–that makes your statement that “modern Catholic apologists…are coming up with a new/novel exegesis” --false. They are simply taking up something that was presented centuries earlier–and examining it and expounding on it–they didn’t invent it out of whole cloth.

Not at all. If you think one mention after more than 1,000 years following ANY church father makes it ‘ancient’ that’s entirely up to you.

You’ve already been presented with two beliefs another poster claims you hold that the ECF’s don’t teach (hold a concensus on)–but you refuse to address the matter–dismissing it is not addressing it–or perhaps you don’t hold those beliefs?

:tsktsk: That’s another misrepresentation and I’m done with your posts.

He started a whole thread on this which I’ve addressed.

 

[Montalban]

I have already said I’d accept evidence not just from ECFs but from Church Councils other source, etc. This already covers posters semantic arguments that I mentioned ECFs. However rather than provide ANY evidence I get seamantic arguments. I’d accept the evidence if you have any. I’ve stated this several times.

There is no evidence of a connection save for what I’ve already stated.

To this total lack of evidence Catholics are questioning my beliefs, stating that I’m offering a disconnect (which is to acknowledge that there’s no connection when there isn’t)

This is a strange re-working of facts. My acknowledgement of a lack of evidence is apparently me projecting a lack of evidence!

As to someone offering a disconnected ‘challenge’ which itself doesn’t provide any evidence re: the OP he started a thread on this, as I asked him to and I addressed his points on THAT THREAD.

It is not a good sign of Catholic apologetics if a question cannot be answered.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t deny Peter had the keys. The site you cite has nothing (unless I missed it) linking the OT key with the keys

Did any ECF contradict the quote from Aphrahat? Not that I’ve seen. Therefore, when the other ECF’s mention keys going to Peter, they don’t have to specifically mention David in the OT context. Besides Jesus is establishing a new kingdom. New keys. The old is passed away.

 

[Montalban]

Did any ECF contradict the quote from Aphrahat?

I already noted the strange ‘prove the opposite’ challenge.

Like ECFs spent their days correcting other ECFs

Thanks for repeating the argument “I have no proof therefore it existed” argument too.

The argument anyway is besides the point.

There is no evidence for it as a teaching* except from the 1800s. That’s the end of it

*-and even there it’s not really a ‘teaching’ because it’s mainly Catholic commentators pushing it, following Protestant exegesis

 

[MarkInOregon]

I already noted this.

I ask a question. And Catholics here rather than answer that answer questions I didn’t ask, or seek me to justify my own position first.

Sorry for challenging people

Stop being condescending. I’ve read the thread and I understand your question. I simply asked you a question – didn’t realize that was not allowed. I did not ask you to justify your position - I simply sought your understanding – I am sorry if you do not wish to answer and provide it. It seems your question has been answered and that you now simply keep overstating what that answer means and refuse to answer any question put to you and instead answer with a charge as above. You are right in that “you didn’t ask, or seek to justify [your] own position” as it appears you came here simply to attempt to score cheap points and refuse to engage in meaningful discussion.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Montalban]

I was challenged here about proving the two wills as taught by the ECFs

I said it had no parallel.

That person now, on his own thread admits it there.

Another Catholic (author of post above*) claimed here that I hadn’t answered that challenge.

I’d like this noted just for the record

The challenge was answered. It had nothing to do with the near total lack of evidence re: the OP

*-who has written an ironic post. My ‘reasons’ for being here are in the OP

I am doing research into the origins of the link between key/keys

 

[lyrikal]

I was challenged here about proving the two wills as taught by the ECFs

I said it had no parallel.

That person now, on his own thread admits it there.

Another Catholic (author of post above*) claimed here that I hadn’t answered that challenge.

I’d like this noted just for the record

The challenge was answered. It had nothing to do with the near total lack of evidence re: the OP

*-who has written an ironic post. My ‘reasons’ for being here are in the OP

I am doing research into the origins of the link between key/keys

I did no such thing. I didn’t admit it. You KEEP misrepresenting my words. WOW you are one interesting character.

 

[Montalban]

I did no such thing. I didn’t admit it. You KEEP misrepresenting my words. WOW you are one interesting character.

So you’re back to thinking that a teaching and a non-teaching that isn’t required belief are the same thing???

 

[lyrikal]

So you’re back to thinking that a teaching and a non-teaching that isn’t required belief are the same thing???

No, I’m “back” to thinking that both had little to no evidence from the Patristics and yet you believe one and reject the other.

Anyway, I give up. I’m more interested in the other thread about the Orthodox position. If you can’t help me there then please stop posting on the thread about key/keys. NOTHING about that thread has anything to do with keys. I did not make that thread for you or to prove you wrong. Get over yourself.

 

[Montalban]

No, I’m “back” to thinking that both had little to no evidence from the Patristics and yet you believe one and reject the other.

That’s not not quite the story.

They both have little WRITTEN evidence.* to certain points**

I noted that the doctrines expressed in church councils usually come with the statement that they were always taught/believed.

There’s no such thing for the key/keys connection.

It’s why also there’s no correlelation between them. I can see why you would think so, because on one point only (no written evidence) they are. But that one superficial similiarity has lead you to believe that they’re closer (and of course you’ll argue that they’re not which only makes the ‘challenge’ less relevant as your posts try all arguments at once)

That I reject it is not the point of the OP. I was looking for evidence as part of my research. I had stated this several times.

My research so far leads me to conclude that the glut of commentary from the 1800s onwards shows Catholics following Protestant exegesis.

I can understand why this puts Catholic noses out of joint which is why there’s been a lot of personal attacks and demands that I justify what I believe

*-But you’ve shown NO EVIDENCE implicit or otherwise that the key/key connection was made by the church.

** for the two wills the written evidence is mainly from the 600s

for the key/keys connection mainly from the 1800s