Peter being declared pope argument

[Justin_Mary]

Thank God for those trying to jump on the Jesus bandwagon after His death or the apostles might never have seen a need write anything down.

Either way the writing is where the liturgy came from so that’s why I said it came first… but you’d say it came from word of mouth.

The original point was that the bible came from the liturgy. It wasn’t to argue that the liturgy came before the Holy Spirit inspired men to write.

Of course there were writings before the liturgy. The early Christian’s read the same books that were read in the synagogues. They also preached the Gospel they heard by word of mouth. They then included letters from the Apostles & other early Church fathers.

Eventually the Church had to limit what writings could be used & canonized what we now know as “The Bible.”

The Bible came from the liturgy. The liturgy came from sacred writings & Tradition. The Church instituted by Christ is the Catholic/Orthodox Church (depending on your slant).

 

[ziapueblo]

Just because some Church Fathers said this does not mean that is the correct teaching. You seem to be thinking that the Church Fathers are infallible. Church Fathers can err on teaching.

Only if what they say contradicts with the teachings of the Latin Church are they in err I guess.

No. In Matthew 16, when Jesus says “you”, it’s first person. So… “you”, not “ya’ll”. In other words: Peter alone. In Matthew 18, when the discussion is the authority to retain or remove from fellowship, then it becomes “ya’ll”.

I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the classic CA tracts. The “keys” have everything to do with binding and loosing, the fathers attest to this, or are they in err?

Jesus tells St Peter that He “will give” the keys not “I give you right now,” and he does give St Peter the keys, along with the rest of the Apostles, as pointed out by some of the Latin Fathers.

Take a look at your Bible. The cross-reference at Mt 16:19 is Isaiah 22:22. And that far predates Hahn.

What early a church fathers made this connection? Also, things didn’t turn out to good. Read all they way through to verse 25.

Ahh… but who exercises them?

All the bishops, as Cyprian of Carthage says in “On the Unity of the Church.” As I stated earlier:

Peter received them on behalf of the Twelve, and that the bishops, being successors of the twelve, are all heirs of the keys, because the episcopal order is a single, undivided entity. Hence, the power of the keys belongs to ALL bishops, and not merely the bishop of Rome.

This goes along with what Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome had written.

Again, I’m not saying that St Peter did not have a special place among the Apostles.

ZP

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Only if what they say contradicts with the teachings of the Latin Church are they in err I guess.

Only when they err with the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church

 

[ziapueblo]

Ok I guess lol

ZP

 

[adf417]

Pardon? No. The Church recognized the writings of Paul when he wrote his letters. They were circulated among the local churches, and were read at liturgies. When the Gospels were written down (somewhere around 60AD-100AD), the Church had already been recognizing these narratives in her liturgies – they had been part of the Mass since Pentecost!

I agree. I think you misunderstood what i wrote.

Peace!!!

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve been on this forum long enough to know the classic CA tracts. The “keys” have everything to do with binding and loosing , the fathers attest to this, or are they in err?

Then you’ve been around long enough to know that “binding and loosing” are mentioned in two contexts – and only one mentions the keys.

Jesus tells St Peter that He “will give” the keys not “I give you right now,”

Not sure what you are thinking that this proves.

What early a church fathers made this connection?

That sounds like a good research project. Please tell me, though: where does Jesus give the “keys” to the early church fathers alone?

Also, things didn’t turn out to good. Read all they way through to verse 25.

Things turned out really good. Please read all the way through to John 21:17. Whom – among all apostles – did Jesus tell to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His sheep? Maybe the church fathers might remind you that it was only to Peter.

 

[Lysander]

Where the first thing i would say about his argument is that the Catholic Faith wasn’t created by war. The first 300 years there was no military presence at all. Second if he makes a claim it is on his side to prove it. You can’t prove a double negative. Just be patience, make your point and than pray on it.

 

[ziapueblo]

Then you’ve been around long enough to know that “binding and loosing” are mentioned in two contexts – and only one mentions the keys.

Christ’s promise to St Peter has two elements; 1) the keys to the kingdom of heaven and 2) the power to bind and loose (forgive sins). This power to “bind and loose” is given to all the Apostles two chapters later.

That sounds like a good research project.

When I retire maybe this I’ll go back to school, work on a PhD in Biblical Theology and this will be my dissertation lol

Please tell me, though: where does Jesus give the “keys” to the early church fathers alone?

The power of the “keys” lives on. The authority to bind and loose sins is given to the apostles and transmitted to the bishops and presbyters they ordained. This authority is given for the sake of the salvation of the sinner. The sinner, “seeing that he is not only cast of out of the Church, but that the bond of his sin will remain in Heaven, he may turn and become gentle” (St John Chrysostom).

Whom – among all apostles – did Jesus tell to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His sheep? Maybe the church fathers might remind you that it was only to Peter.

The Petrine Ministry and the Roman Primacy are two different things. The Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, has been exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. Note that the CHURCH holds the primacy, not the man. The Papacy therefore is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy.

ZP

 

[po18guy]

In amongst all of this pontificating on who was the first pontiff, where’d the OP go?

My 1/2 of one cent: Disengage and pray - that works 100% of the time. Later, after you habitually listen to Catholic radio and watch EWTN and other solid Catholic shows, you can re-engage him so as to correct the errors he has learned.

 

[AntiochPeters1stSee]

“ Take a look at your Bible. The cross-reference at Mt 16:19 is Isaiah 22:22. And that far predates Hahn.”

Depends what bible you read. If you read an Old Testament with the Hebrew Masoretic texts you’ll find the passage in Isaiah 22 that mentions the key. If you read the Septuagint, Isaiah 22 doesn’t mention the key. But for the sake of argument let’s include the passage with the key. The key in Isaiah is a singular key and the passage in Matthew 16 is plural keys. Why? Because Jesus made a future promise to give the keys. So when did he give the keys and to whom did he give them? In Matthew 18 all the Apostles received the keys(plural).

 

[annad347]

If it did they were probably getting it wrong, which is why things needed to be written down.

 

[Gorgias]

The key in Isaiah is a singular key and the passage in Matthew 16 is plural keys. Why? Because Jesus made a future promise to give the keys. So when did he give the keys and to whom did he give them? In Matthew 18 all the Apostles received the keys(plural).

Wow. That’s a lot of eisegesis there!

I get why you need to see it that way. But hey, let’s play along and see how it goes…

If Jesus says that He “will give” the keys to Peter alone (after all, it’s “soi” here), then has He lied? Did He later decide that’s not what he wanted to do, and so, He gave them to all the apostles later? Or, perhaps, even though he never mentions the keys to all the apostles in Mt 18, he later makes good on His “future tense giving” to Peter, and takes them back away? Or, perhaps, having made good on giving them to Peter at some point in the future, you’re suggesting that Peter turns and distributes them to the apostles (and, I’d hope, you’d be able to show that, Scripturally)?

See…? None of these really work. But, they’re important for you to assert, if you want to deny Petrine Primacy.

 

[Gorgias]

If it did they were probably getting it wrong, which is why things needed to be written down.

The apostles “were probably getting [liturgy] wrong”? Umm… that’s a staggering claim! You’re saying that the very people who were present with Jesus managed to get it wrong within the first 30 years of the Church???

And if they were getting it wrong, how would writing down (what they were already getting wrong) going to help?

Incidentally… that’s not why they wrote down the Gospels. The early Church hoped that Jesus would return within their lifetime; when that didn’t happen, they wrote down the teachings of the Apostles that they had been hearing verbally for thirty years.

 

[annad347]

The apostles “were probably getting [liturgy] wrong”?

I never said the apostles got anything wrong. I was refering to how the Epistles letters showed we started getting things wrong.

 

[AntiochPeters1stSee]

If Jesus says that He “will give” the keys to Peter alone (after all, it’s “soi” here), then has He lied? Did He later decide that’s not what he wanted to do, and so, He gave them to all the apostles later? Or, perhaps, even though he never mentions the keys to all the apostles in Mt 18, he later makes good on His “future tense giving” to Peter, and takes them back away? Or, perhaps, having made good on giving them to Peter at some point in the future, you’re suggesting that Peter turns and distributes them to the apostles (and, I’d hope, you’d be able to show that, Scripturally)?

See…? None of these really work. But, they’re important for you to assert, if you want to deny Petrine Primacy.

The problem is you’re stopping at Peter and ignoring what is said later on. Yes in Matthew 16 Jesus is speaking to Jesus alone. Why? Because of the context of what took place a few verses before. The issue is that Jesus didn’t give Peter alone the keys at that moment. He made a future promise “I will” to give Peter the keys(plural). What do the keys symbolize? Jesus tells Peter. They symbolize authority to bind and loose. So when he tells all the Apostles they have authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18, is he giving them authority to bind and loose without the symbol of the keys? No way! That would be as you said, eisegesis.

As far as Peters primacy goes, no one in their right mind would deny his primacy. What is denied is the Roman Catholic anachronistic view of Peter that he was the “universal and supreme ruler of all Christians all over the world with immediate jurisdiction everywhere.” Honestly how Roman Catholics get from “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” to “you are Peter and you and all of your successors will be Popes with universal and supreme jurisdiction, you’ll be infallible etc…” is insane! This is not historical. This is a second millennium innovation as your own Church admits in the Chieti agreement. But I know, you’ll just say the Chieti agreement isn’t an “infallible document” right? Logic when it comes the Papacy is circular…

 

[adf417]

If it did they were probably getting it wrong, which is why things needed to be written down.

I agree they needed to write it down but not necessarily for the same reason.

Do you have evidence the liturgy was becoming corrupt? I have shown you evidence of the canon becoming corrupt I think it would be fair if you show us your evidence to backup the conjecture. Otherwise you must agree the church did in fact declare the canon by declaring which books would no longer be considered inspired for the flock and locking down the 27 books in the NT.

Peace!!!

 

[Gorgias]

So when he tells all the Apostles they have authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18, is he giving them authority to bind and loose without the symbol of the keys? No way! That would be as you said, eisegesis.

That’s the tail wagging the dog. Jesus gives authority; “the keys” is just the metaphor for that authority.

When you dive into the text, claiming that Petrine Priority – which is the practice of the Church since the beginning! – is untrue because of ‘tense’ and ‘number’ – you’ve really descended into eisegesis. At that point, you’re moving backwards: from “later assertion” to “earlier text”, rather than proceeding naturally and chronologically.

Honestly how Roman Catholics get from “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” to “you are Peter and you and all of your successors will be Popes with universal and supreme jurisdiction, you’ll be infallible etc…” is insane!

Does Peter have authority, in a singular fashion? (Yep. Scriptural.) Does he exercise it? (Yep. Scriptural.) Do his successors have it? (Yep – see the ECFs.) So, if the exercise of the authority proceeds from Scriptural warrant… then you don’t have a leg to stand on, here. It just devolves into “I don’t like that”.

This is a second millennium innovation as your own Church admits in the Chieti agreement.

You may want to re-read the document, then, if that’s your understanding of it:

In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to this matter in the future.

So… no. Not a “second millennium innovation”. But, for those wouldn’t bother to look up the text of the document… it’s a clever attempt to build a strawman!

 

[Justin_Mary]

Do you have evidence the liturgy was becoming corrupt?

I’m the one who original inferred the liturgy was becoming corrupt which prompted the Church to define what will & will not be used in the liturgy of the Church.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Do you have evidence the liturgy was becoming corrupt?

I’m the one who original inferred the liturgy was becoming corrupt which prompted the Church to define what will & will not be used in the liturgy of the Church.

:+1:t3:
I was replying to @annad347 post #72

Peace!!!

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Honestly how Roman Catholics get from “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” to “you are Peter and you and all of your successors will be Popes with universal and supreme jurisdiction, you’ll be infallible etc…” is insane!

Consider that the only time the keys are used in the OT, or in the Gospels, they have to do with dynastic succession and authority of office. Jesus purposely used the language of Isa 22:22 when demonstrating this purpose.

In that verse, the keys are passed on from Shebna to Eliacim as master/steward of the Kings house. So too is Peter the steward in Christs house in his absence. Christ did not give this authority to everyone. He gave it to Simon and renamed him Cephas just as Abram became Abraham and Jacob became Israel. When God chooses a new vocation for you, He gives you a new name.

Mt 16:19 • ‘And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.’
Isa 22:22 • ‘And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.’

This is not historical.

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (A.D. 96)

“… the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 110)

" [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority …"
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)