Key vs keys

[Montalban]

Three things: 1) I have not seen anywhere that the ECFs “don’t see it.” That would be to argue from the silence you say exists here. It would be like citing Athanasius’ shorter canon list in his 39th letter and assuming he therefore “rejected” the Deuterocanon.

The argument from silence works in this case because NO church fathers commented on the link (except Aphraates)

By your rationale because NO ECFs argue something it’s permitted to believe it (within the realm of religious belief). You’re certainly opening up a very large can of worms there.

1. Therefore, I think to deny the textual parallel between Matt 16 and Is 22 is specious when the texts line up so closely;

Yes, I accept you draw parallels. It is of course a modern interpretation, and that itself should bring alarm bells ringing.

You’re entitled to believe this modern understanding, based as it seems to be on Protestant exegesis.

And 3) There’s an abundance of ECFs that interpret the Matthew 16 keys as the Lord’s gift especially to Peter –– so the theology is certainly there among the ECFs. I don’t see any “gotcha” at work here.

Which is to evidence one thing to prove another

I also think the St. John Cassian association that you dismissed is a theological association with Is. 22, but at any rate…

Well he makes no direct parallel at all. Apparently though ‘argument from silence’ works for you here???

John Cassian does not mention David. If John Cassian was making the connection then he is at best circumspect, which is at odds with him talking explicitly about Peter.

So let me summarize

You think something that the Church Fathers failed to comment on means an ‘argument from silence’ therefore it’s permissible.

That’s fine, if you want to take that approach. I’m not here to argue whether your approach is valid - just to determine its ‘roots’ - and in this case it’s clearly not based on the ECFs

Unless of course you can provide evidence from ECFs

 

[Montalban]

It seems reasonable to me to accept that the Church Fathers quoted below were speaking in the context of the keys of stewardship from Isaiah 22. The Church Fathers understood the primacy of Peter and the concept of a single chair.

Which one of them makes the connection?

 

[Montalban]

You’re looking for a consensus? Please find me a consensus from the Early Church Fathers that speak about Christ having two wills in the first 5 centuries of Christianity. How many Church Fathers spoke about this? Can you list some quotes for us? Show us a consensus please.

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.

Secondly, its a switch because instead of proving ECFs believe the link between key and keys you now wish me to prove another point entirely.

What you’re in effect saying is “I can’t prove a connection by ECFs over 2,000 years, but this is okay because you can’t prove another connection within 500 years”

You keep bringing up the fact that only St. John spoke about the comparison. How about Aphraates the Sage writing in 330 AD?

If you had read my posts you’d have noted that I accept Aphraates as the ONLY ECF who makes the connection.

 

[Montalban]

(Aphraates,

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

 

[lyrikal]

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.

Secondly, its a switch because instead of proving ECFs believe the link between key and keys you now wish me to prove another point entirely.

What you’re in effect saying is “I can’t prove a connection by ECFs over 2,000 years, but this is okay because you can’t prove another connection within 500 years”

If you had read my posts you’d have noted that I accept Aphraates as the ONLY ECF who makes the connection.

Fair enough. You conveniently ignored my request to show us a consensus of the Fathers that speak about Christ having two wills in the first 5 centuries of Christianity. If you’re unable to show a consensus, then by your own standards and logic, we should not accept this to be a true doctrine.

 

[Montalban]

this article. References to Ephrem, & Syrian tradition

syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm

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!!!

 

[lyrikal]

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.

You were asking for Patristic evidence and I’m doing the same. That’s not a flawed challenge; it’s the same exact challenge you’re putting on the table. Was there a consensus from the Fathers that Christ had two wills? Please provide this consensus for us. If you’re unable to, then you should not expect us to provide you a consensus of your challenge. The point is, there doesn’t HAVE to be a consensus from the Fathers for something to be true. Since you seem to believe that there has to be such a consensus from the Patristics, then please provide us with the Fathers who spoke about Christ having two wills. You won’t find much (or anything) until the 7th or 8th century. Why? Because there was no question raised about His wills until then so no one felt the need to

a.) Answer the question
b.) Defend the doctrine
c.) Or to even talk about it

Secondly, its a switch because instead of proving ECFs believe the link between key and keys you now wish me to prove another point entirely.

It’s a switch to show your double standards. No one here is saying that there is a consensus of the Fathers with Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. But, you seem to be implying that a consensus must exist from the Fathers in order for something to be true. My argument is: Find us a consensus from the Patristics that agree that Christ has two wills. Did St. Polycarp talk about it? Tertullian? St. Irenaeus? St. Justin Martyr? St. Augustine? St. John Cassian? St. Ephrem? Origen? St. Cyprian? Pope Stephen? St. Ambrose? St Ignatius of Antioch? Where is your consensus?

What you’re in effect saying is “I can’t prove a connection by ECFs over 2,000 years, but this is okay because you can’t prove another connection within 500 years”

Forget the 500 years. Show us a consensus from ALL of the Early Church Fathers up to the first 700-800 years of Christianity. You have to prove that there is such a consensus. A consensus means that most of them wrote about Christ having two wills. Not just a few in the 600-700s. You can show us two or three and raise your hands up in victory if you’d like. This is hardly a consensus. I am challenging you based off your own standards.

If you had read my posts you’d have noted that I accept Aphraates as the ONLY ECF who makes the connection.

It’s funny how you brush it off as if it’s not a big deal that we found one. When the one we have to support our interpretation of Matthew 16 is earlier than any Father you can provide who talks about Christ having two wills.

Blessings.

 

[Montalban]

You were asking for Patristic evidence and I’m doing the same. That’s not a flawed challenge;

Yes, it’s a flawed challenge. You might want to look up about proving negatives.

Proving a something is not negated by the inability to prove a nothing.

it’s the same exact challenge you’re putting on the table.

It’s not the same thing at all.

It’s funny how you brush it off as if it’s not a big deal that we found one. When the one we have to support our interpretation of Matthew 16 is earlier than any Father you can provide who talks about Christ having two wills.

Blessings.

It’s funny how you have turned this into ‘we have found one’ - I already was aware of Aphraates having read PhilVaz’s site. I e-mailed him asking if he had any more, and like your fellow posters here found none.

I thus didn’t merely brush this aside at all. I also referenced about five or six different books by Catholic apologists who make the connection, and referenced what I believe to be the oldest source (aside from Aphraates) to make the connection.

I get this kind of ‘triumphalism’ all the time about how people have taught me a lesson on something like that. Instead of ‘teaching me’ something I already know, why not present some evidence from ECFs as per the OP?

I accept that you have next to no evidence* and plenty of modern speculation from apologists like Stephen Ray et al.

*aside from Aphraates

 

[lyrikal]

Yes, it’s a flawed challenge. You might want to look up about proving negatives.

Proving a something is not negated by the inability to prove a nothing.

It’s not the same thing at all.

How is it not the same thing at all? Please answer that for me.

It’s funny how you have turned this into ‘we have found one’ - I already was aware of Aphraates having read PhilVaz’s site. I e-mailed him asking if he had any more, and like your fellow posters here found none.

I thus didn’t merely brush this aside at all. I also referenced about five or six different books by Catholic apologists who make the connection, and referenced what I believe to be the oldest source (aside from Aphraates) to make the connection.

I get this kind of ‘triumphalism’ all the time about how people have taught me a lesson on something like that. Instead of ‘teaching me’ something I already know, why not present some evidence from ECFs as per the OP?

Why not present us with a consensus from the Fathers that teach that Christ has two wills? Double standard…

I accept that you have next to no evidence* and plenty of modern speculation from apologists like Stephen Ray et al.

And I accept that you have next to no evidence of a consensus from the Fathers that speak about Christ having two wills.

*aside from Aphraates

Well I guess that’s 1-0, isn’t it? I don’t think you’re getting my point here. I’m not saying that the connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is true because ONE Church Father made the connection. This is all I’m saying:

A consensus from the Fathers does NOT have to be provided in order to prove something to be true. I gave an example of Christ having two wills. There is no such consensus from the Fathers that speak about this doctrine. Same as the doctrine of Mary’s Bodily Assumption into heaven. Yet, you believe in those two doctrines (even though there is no such consensus from the Fathers that teach these doctrines) and we are not allowed to believe the connection between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 because only one Father spoke about it?

How do you not see your double standard? PLEASE tell me how they are different. I am giving you the SAME EXACT challenge you are giving us. I have already admitted that there aren’t anymore Fathers who made the connection. The only difference between the two of us is, I don’t believe that there MUST be a consensus from the Fathers in order for a doctrine to be true. You seem to believe that there must be a consensus. By your own standards, I am asking you to provide a consensus for doctrines that YOU believe to be true.

a.) Christ having two wills
b.) Mary’s Bodily Assumption

How is THAT a different challenge? The only thing you did in your post was say “Nope.”

Please provide reasons as to how it is different.

 

[lyrikal]

I accept that you have next to no evidence* and plenty of modern speculation from apologists like Stephen Ray et al.

You are more than welcomed to believe that the connection is a recent one made by modern apologists but I have evidence to suggest otherwise.

St. Francis De Sales (16th Century)

"It is then the supreme authority which Our Lord here promises to S. Peter; and in fact when the Scripture elsewhere wishes to speak of a sovereign authority it has used similar terms. In the Apocalypse(i. 17, 18) when Our Lord wishes to make himself known to his servant, he says to him: I am the first and the last and alive and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. What does he mean by the keys of death and of hell, except the supreme power over the one and the other? And there also where it is said These things saith the Holy one and the True one, who hath the key of David: he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth (Ibid. iii. 7) , what can we understand but the supreme authority of the Church? And what else is meant by what the Angel said to Our Lady (Luke i. 32): The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever?-the Holy Spirit making us know the kingship of our Lord, now by the seat or throne, now by the keys. But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter. In it there is described the deposition of a sovereign-priest and governor of the Temple: Thus saith the Lord God of hosts: go get thee into him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple; and thou shalt say to him what dost thou here? And further on: I will depose thee. See there the de position of one, and now the institution of the other. And it. shall come to pass in that day that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will, clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand : and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house David upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.

Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures? For: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven- is it not at least equivalent to: I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias? And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell, &c. -does this not signify the same as: I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand, and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Juda? And what else is it to be the foundation or foundation stone of a family than to be there as father, to have the superintendence, to be governor there? And if one has had this assurance: I will lay the key of the house of David on his shoulder, the other has had no less, who had the promise: And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And if when he has opened no one shall shut, when he has shut no one shall open; so, when the other shall have loosened no one shall bind, when he shall have bound no one shall loosen. The one is Eliacim son of Helcias, the other, Simon the son of Jonas; the one is clothed with the pontifical robe, the other with heavenly revelation; the one has power in his hand, the other is a strong rock; the one is as father in Jerusalem, the other is as foundation in the Church; the one has the keys of the kingdom of David, the other those of the Church of the Gospel; when one shuts nobody opens, when one binds nobody looses; when one opens no one shuts, when one loosens nobody binds. What further remains to be said than that if ever Eliacim son of Helcias was head of the Mosaic Temple, Simon son of Jonas was the same of the Gospel Church? Eliacim represented Our Lord as figure, S. Peter represents him as lieutenant; Eliacim represented him in the Mosaic Church, and S. Peter in the Christian Church. Such is what is meant by this promise of giving the keys to S. Peter, a promise which was never made to the other Apostles."

I hope this helps you drop the notion that this is an invention from modern day apologists such as Steve Ray, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, etc.

 

[Montalban]

How is it not the same thing at all? Please answer that for me.

I already did. I mentioned proving a negative.

Anyway, if you have no evidence re: the OP, that’s fine.

 

[Montalban]

You are more than welcomed to believe that the connection is a recent one made by modern apologists but I have evidence to suggest otherwise.

I already referenced De Sales post #10. I would strongly recommend reading the posts I have made

I am also not aware that de Sales is now considered a Church Father.

For those new to the thread and wish to skip passed all the posts including the OP

I note that some Catholic apologists (see post #15) believe that there’s a connection between the single key of David (in Isaiah) to the several keys of Peter (in Matthew).

I was intrigued as to why they believe this.

As far as I’m aware the Church Fathers are silent.

I acknowledge that one ECF specifically mentions a link. I have heard that Ephraim also links it, albeit in a hymn or a poem - but I’ve not seen this, and I don’t think he’s a Church Father (some might doubt that Aphrahat is a Church Father, as well).

Anyway, skip to the 1800s and De Salles work (from the 1600s) becomes more widely known. Protestants begin making the connection between the key and the keys.

Following near silence on the matter - except for Aphrahat, as I note, Catholics are in large following the Protestant lead.

I haven’t yet mentioned which Protestants pushed forward this idea. One was Ernest de Bunsen, or Ernst von Bunsen is on the pioneers of this connection. “What we know not, the successors of St. Peter, the possessors of the keys of St. Peter, of the key of David, do know”
von Bunsen, E. C. L., (1867) The keys of saint Peter; or, The house of Rechab connected with the history of Symbolism and Idolatry (Longmans, Green & Co; London), p421

I should note that another Protestant said “The application of the same terms to Peter, and to Christ himself does not prove that they here relate to either.” Alexander, J. A., (1992) Commentary on Isaiah (Kregal Classics; Grand Rapids, MI), pp389-390

However PhilVaz himself cites on his web-site only Aphrahat (and speculates John Cassian as well) and then a whole lot of Protestants from the 1800s on

Therefore there’s 1,400 years of silence between Aphrahat and de Sales - and as noted his work wasn’t widely published till the 1800s, so that’s in effect 1,600 years of silence on the topic

 

[MarcoPolo]

because NO ECFs argue something

As you yourself have acknowledged herein, that is a false statement.

‘argument from silence’ works for you here???

No, because as I already said, and will for the last time, the theology of Petrine keys to the kingdom is quite extant throughout the ECFs regardless to our sparsity of cross-reference to Is. 22.

 

[Montalban]

As you yourself have acknowledged herein, that is a false statement

I don’t argue that, however.

I said “I base my beliefs on the ECFs” I then asked for ECF evidence and you and others give me lots of speculations and proving one thing to prove another, and then reverse the challenge etc. All because you cannot answer the OP.

.No, because as I already said, and will for the last time, the theology of Petrine keys to the kingdom is quite extant throughout the ECFs regardless to our sparsity of cross-reference to Is. 22.

Yes, I accept you have a non-sequitur.

Your logic runs

“There’s heaps of references to Peter having the keys, therefore the keys he has must relate to this other key, because it does”

As I said in my previous post:
I should note that another Protestant said “The application of the same terms to Peter, and to Christ himself does not prove that they here relate to either.” Alexander, J. A., (1992) Commentary on Isaiah (Kregal Classics; Grand Rapids, MI), pp389-390

There are other keys in the OT. Why are they also not equally valid as keys of Peter?

I think the thread has run its course.

I had hoped to see some other evidence from Church Fathers. There does not seem to be any.

 

[lyrikal]

I don’t argue that, however.

I said “I base my beliefs on the ECFs”

No, you don’t.

 

[lyrikal]

I already referenced De Sales post #10. I would strongly recommend reading the posts I have made

I am also not aware that de Sales is now considered a Church Father.

Perhaps, you are the one with problems reading my posts. Please point to where I said that St. Francis de Sales was a church father. My only point in showing you St. Francis was so you could drop the notion that this is a modern day invention made up by modern day Catholic apologists and Protestant commentaries.

We clearly see it from one Church Father and we see it from a Catholic in the 16th century. That was my only point.

For those new to the thread and wish to skip passed all the posts including the OP

I note that some Catholic apologists (see post #15) believe that there’s a connection between the single key of David (in Isaiah) to the several keys of Peter (in Matthew).

I was intrigued as to why they believe this.

[22] And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. -Isaiah 22:22

[19] 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." -Matthew 16:19

The comparison shouldn’t intrigue you. They’re strikingly similar.

 

[lyrikal]

I already did. I mentioned proving a negative.

Anyway, if you have no evidence re: the OP, that’s fine.

You’re completely missing the point. I’m not sure if you’re missing the point on purpose or not but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me make it more clear for you.

You said you base your beliefs on the Early Church Fathers. You place a rule on the table that the Fathers must have a consensus of such a belief in order for it to be true/apostolic. I ALREADY ADMITTED that the Fathers are nearly silent about what you are asking for. This has already been done countless times. I’m not trying to pretend like there was such a consensus about the parallels between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. What I am presenting to you is YOUR OWN CHALLENGE here. What is your challenge? That the Fathers must have a consensus in order for something to be true. So, I asked you to show me a consensus of the Fathers that speak about Christ having two wills. IT DOESN’T EXIST. Do you reject this teaching? No. Why? Because we both know it’s a true doctrine. But there is no consensus from the Fathers that speak about this doctrine. Yet, you and I both believe it. Here is the key part: WHY are YOU allowed to believe in a teaching that the Fathers don’t have a consensus for and we are not? WHY is your teaching true (even though there is no consensus) and ours is automatically not true just because there is no Patristic consensus? THAT is what you need to answer.

Again, I have already admitted that there doesn’t need to be a consensus from the Fathers in order for something to be true/doctrine.

YOU are the one who is suggesting that there is. You set this rule up and when it is turned back around at you, you don’t think it applies to you. How convenient of you to set “burdens” that you won’t even apply to your self.

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps, you are the one with problems reading my posts. Please point to where I said that St. Francis de Sales was a church father.

If he’s not then he’s irrelevant in a thread asking for evidence from Church Fathers.

My only point in showing you St. Francis was so you could drop the notion that this is a modern day invention made up by modern day Catholic apologists and Protestant commentaries.

And I noted

a) I had recognised him before you mentioned him
and
b) Catholics love to tell me that they have shown/taught me things I already know.

Nothing new here at all.

 

[Montalban]

You’re completely missing the point. I’m not sure if you’re missing the point on purpose or not but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me make it more clear for you.

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.

YOU are the one who is suggesting that there is. You set this rule up and when it is turned back around at you, you don’t think it applies to you. How convenient of you to set “burdens” that you won’t even apply to your self.

Well, now you contradict yourself. You either believer that there’s silence or there isn’t.

I take silence on the matter as ‘consensus’. If the Church Fathers didn’t teach it then I don’t just make stuff up. Perhaps you do?

There’s no Church Fathers who teach that unicorns don’t exist therefore they might. I can see why that kind of logic is attractive. It certainly is a way of validating any novel belief.

Anyway, as per the OP we both agree the ECFs are slient.

I thank you for agreeing with that.

That seems to be the case. The modern Catholic apologists have come up with new exegesis.

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

 

[Montalban]

The comparison shouldn’t intrigue you. They’re strikingly similar.

I already covered that too. I must, for the second time now, strongly urge you to read the posts you’re replying to.