Key vs keys

[steve_b]

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

the context of key / keys, is about valid authority. That obviously goes for valid Church authority to teach as well.
M:

We would differ in ‘where’ he had successors.

You’re free to try and make your case about successors. Please show your evidence that your point was understood in a special way by the Church
M:

I addressed the correct one

The Melkite’s are Catholics. They are the correct ones.
M:

No. There is no connect.

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

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

That still doesn’t help

The OT “key” to the house of David (the Davidic kingdom) is a symbol of authority. Just as keys to the kingdom of God given to Peter is a symbol of the authority given to Peter. Few today argue against this comparison. The few who do are a significant minority to those who easily see the analogy.
M:

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

I don’t see your analogy.
M:

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

No one is saying The OT key = the NT keys. It’s an analogy from an OT type to the infinitely bigger fulfillment in the NT kingdom and covenant Jesus makes with us.
M:

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”

We aren’t exactly talking about silence. Apharat gave the evidence and made the OT and NT analogy (key vs keys). His argument is much like the other ECF’s who describe the keys given to Peter.

Here’s another example

St. John Cassian (c. 362-435), writes:
“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation) newadvent.org/fathers/35093.htm

would you agree Cassian is also making an analogy from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16?

 

[steve_b]

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

Aphrahat and Cassian support the analogy of “key” & “keys”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9717970&postcount=19
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9739071&postcount=79

Doesn’t come from the 1800’s, or Protestant exegesis.

 

[Montalban]

would you agree Cassian is also making an analogy from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16?

I talked about Cassian many posts ago but if your posts are simply to repeat claims, that’s fine too

 

[Montalban]

I don’t see your analogy.

You think ‘key’ and ‘keys’ are the same.

Ergo ‘dollar’ and ‘dollars’ are

 

[steve_b]

You think ‘key’ and ‘keys’ are the same.

Ergo ‘dollar’ and ‘dollars’ are

As I said previously, The OT key & the NT keys is an analogy, a symbol of authority.

 

[Montalban]

As I said previously, The OT key & the NT keys is an analogy, a symbol of authority.

Like the key (singular) in Revelations?

Revelation 3:7
The Faithful Church ] “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:

(which actually explicitly links the key of David)

How’s about that then? Revelations links to Isaiah explicitly. But when we have evidence for that, we can ignore that and go with a theory based on no evidence that it relates to a set of keys!

And of course that link is that David is a prefigurement of Christ, not Peter!

 

[steve_b]

Like the key (singular) in Revelations?

Revelation 3:7
The Faithful Church ] “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:

(which actually explicitly links the key of David)

How’s about that then? Revelations links to Isaiah explicitly. But when we have evidence for that, we can ignore that and go with a theory based on no evidence that it relates to a set of keys!

And of course that link is that David is a prefigurement of Christ, not Peter!

Who said David is a prefigurement of Peter? I don’t recall anyone making that link. Hezekiah, son of David, gave the key of the house of David to Eliakim, and Jesus, son of God, son of David, gave the keys of His kingdom to Peter. That’s the connection, the analogy, the symbol of authority being given from the king to the prime minister. Eliakim is the prime minister under king Hezekiah, as Peter is prime minister under Jesus. That’s the context. And key / keys is an analogy. There are no real keys. Key / keys are a symbol of that authority given to another from the one who the authority originates from. The authority given to Eliakim comes from King Hezekiah, just as the authority given to Peter , comes from Jesus, symbolized by the key /keys Jesus gives to Peter. Because Our Lord’s kingdom will last forever, those keys of authority, are backed up by Jesus to Peter’s successors.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Can someone explain to me why we would even need more than one ECF to accept the key/keys when there is zero evidence of the ECF’s teaching something different regarding the key/keys?

 

[Montalban]

Can someone explain to me why we would even need more than one ECF to accept the key/keys when there is zero evidence of the ECF’s teaching something different regarding the key/keys?

Do you think that an ECF is infallible?

 

[Montalban]

Who said David is a prefigurement of Peter? I don’t recall anyone making that link. Hezekiah, son of David, gave the key of the house of David to Eliakim, and Jesus, son of God, son of David, gave the keys of His kingdom to Peter. That’s the connection, the analogy, the symbol of authority being given from the king to the prime minister. Eliakim is the prime minister under king Hezekiah, as Peter is prime minister under Jesus. That’s the context. And key / keys is an analogy. There are no real keys. Key / keys are a symbol of that authority given to another from the one who the authority originates from. The authority given to Eliakim comes from King Hezekiah, just as the authority given to Peter , comes from Jesus, symbolized by the key /keys Jesus gives to Peter. Because Our Lord’s kingdom will last forever, those keys of authority, are backed up by Jesus to Peter’s successors.

Your post ignored mine. I drew a DIRECT link between Isaiah and Revelations. The bible does that for us. It doesn’t do the same between Isaiah and Matthew.

Leaving aside the fact your post ignored that you post is now adding invention. So Eliakim is a prefigurement of Peter? That’s the first I’ve ever heard of that too.

Do you have any evidence for this either?

You’re also stretching events.

You have David getting the keys, then passing them to a King, who then passes them onto a Prime Minister

compared to

Jesus giving the keys to Peter

One has Peter receiving the keys directly and passing them on to other popes (presumably) Not Peter passing them onto another king (as David did) who then delegates the keys to a lesser person, a Prime Minister

It just doesn’t work as a parallel.

One has

**God ** keys to king-> King keys to Prime Minister → Prime Minister (supposedly the prefigurement of Peter)

with

God keys to → Peter (as Prime Minister)

EVEN IF you have

God as the new king keys to → Peter (as Prime Minister) it won’t work, because David, as a prefigurement of Jesus in your scheme doesn’t hand them on to a Prime Minister but ANOTHER KING

Also, the key/keys have different ‘functions’. The keys of Peter are about binding and loosing in heaven

As noted if you want to talk about the key opening something that’s already shown in the post yours ignores

What your post is doing is drawing in connections never made

 

[Montalban]

Peter warned against private interpretation.

We see the results of it here

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Do you think that an ECF is infallible?

Nope, but I do believe the Church is infallible and if the infallible Church approves of what an ECF wrote then I approve of the ECF. See how that works?

Peter warned against private interpretation

We see the results of it here

Oh the irony of someone who doesnt believe in Papal infallibility using the first Popes infallible writings to mock those who believe in Papal infallibility. It really doesn’t get much sweeter than that.

 

[Montalban]

As I said previously, The OT key & the NT keys is an analogy, a symbol of authority.

So you can link any “symbol of authority” then

 

[Montalban]

Nope, but I do believe the Church is infallible and if the infallible Church approves of what an ECF wrote then I approve of the ECF. See how that works?

Then show me teaching from the church. :doh2:

Your argument’s now going circular

Oh the irony of someone who doesnt believe in Papal infallibility using the first Popes infallible writings to mock those who believe in Papal infallibility. It really doesn’t get much sweeter than that.

Who’s mocking?

Which pope**s **are you talking about?

I think you mean pope (sing.)

It’s strange that Catholic argument revolves around not understanding the difference between singular and plural.

Another poster argued that he had seen many Orthodox argue something, when he meant just me.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Then show me teaching from the church. :doh2:

We have but you don’t like the quantity of the ECF’s cause somewhere in your head you have established the rule that one ECF isn’t good enough even though Holy Mother Church approves. Plus you don’t like the dates for the other material so .

I mean to be honest your asking us to make a case for the Key/Keys based on your own personal opinion of what you believe is an acceptable amount of ECF writtings to constitute the “mind” of the Church. A couple things you haven’t done for us is tell us exactly how many ECF’s is proof enough or shown us how you can say our one ECF wasn’t speaking what the Church held has a common belief even though that same Church hundreds if not a thousand years later affirmed the very same position in Vatican I?

I think you mean pope (sing.)

Pope’s; sorry I forgot the " ’ " and had you all confused.

 

[Montalban]

We have but you don’t like the quantity of the ECF’s cause somewhere in your head you have established the rule that one ECF isn’t good enough even though Holy Mother Church approves.

Really? Cite me the Orthodox church writers who say “A single ECF proves the point”. Or, anything like that. Anything at all.

I’d even like you to cite it from your own church.

So far you guys keep making up more stuff to justify earlier inventions that were made up to justify earlier inventions.

What you guys are presenting are a whole series of new things to justify no evidence.

Plus you don’t like the dates for the other material so

I take it then ‘the church’ is for you the many Protestant writers given to me already, along with such luminaries as Stephen K Ray.



This is the first I’ve ever heard of this too. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church comes up with doctrine by waiting for a great many Catholics ‘historians’* to write about something and then adopting that as teaching.

*-I use this in the most liberal sense of the word, having read Ray’s work.

 

[Montalban]

Pope’s; sorry I forgot the " ’ " and had you all confused.

The problem is you call it mocking by me citing it. But you’re the one not paying heed to his words!

Private interpretation leads to many errors.

So far your ‘church’ teaching on this consists MAINLY of modern non-clergy writing on the matter… and even several Protestants.

And an attempt to justify this.

 

[lyrikal]

Another poster argued that he had seen many Orthodox argue something, when he meant just me.

No, I didn’t mean just you. This is the 4th time you bring this up and the 4th time I refute you with regards to this. You have a way of putting words into people’s mouths and telling them what they mean. That’s very arrogant of you.

Again, how do you know if other Orthodox Christians haven’t done the same? How do you know I haven’t spoken to like 15 of them and they’ve all told me the same thing? How do you know that it wasn’t on THIS forum or ANY forum at all but in person? HOW can you tell me what I meant? You’d have to be a part of every single conversation I have ever had with an Orthodox Christian. I have never even met you so please stop assuming that I only meant you (unless you truly believe that you’ve been a part of every single conversation I’ve had with an Orthodox).

 

[Montalban]

No, I didn’t mean just you. This is the 4th time you bring this up and the 4th time I refute you with regards to this. You have a way of putting words into people’s mouths and telling them what they mean. That’s very arrogant of you.

For the record, since this person has identified himself… I asked this person then who these other Orthodox were and he said it was just me.

 

[Montalban]

I’d like to get back to this thing where people ignore that David is the prefigurement of Jesus, not Peter