Peters Keys to the Kingdom

[Sellers1]

But yet, Jesus knew that Peter would deny him 3 times and still gave him the keys to the kingdom. Go figure.

• Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
• Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
• Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
• Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

These quotes are taken from another thread, and I believe answer your statements.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354814

As far as the Get behind me Satan statement, if you read Matthew in context, you will see that Jesus revealed to them he knew he had to suffer and die for our sins. Peter was pleading with Jesus, hoping that it wouldn’t happen. Jesus’ statement was a way of rebuking him, and letting him know that it indeed must happen. He called Peter a stumbling block by not wanting him to fulfill his mission.

God didn’t create denominations. Man did. After Christ’s death and resurrection, there was only one “church”. It wasn’t until the schism, and reformation that denominations were created. A denomination is man’s way of setting themselves apart from one another.

First of all you are putting an ownership statement with the keys of the Kingdom. We simply do not agree there. Next, you are seriously downplaying that Jesus founded the Church upon himself (the stone which the builders rejected becoming the chief Cornerstone) with Peter being given the leadership role. The Scriptures are very clear.

As far as denominations go, we can debate who is THE Church and I will tell you that the Catholic church is a denomination and NOT The only true Church all day long.

 

[twopekinguys]

First of all you are putting an ownership statement with the keys of the Kingdom. We simply do not agree there. Next, you are seriously downplaying that Jesus founded the Church upon himself (the stone which the builders rejected becoming the chief Cornerstone) with Peter being given the leadership role. The Scriptures are very clear.

As far as denominations go, we can debate who is THE Church and I will tell you that the Catholic church is a denomination and NOT The only true Church all day long.

From Matthew:
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. —Pretty self explainatory
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.—He didn’t give them to anyone else now did he? Although he could have.

I agree that Catholocism is a “denomination” in this day and age. But since we can trace the papacy back to Peter through Apostolic succession, I would have to disagree with you, and state that we are the True Church of Jesus Christ, founded by Jesus himself.

 

[Sellers1]

From Matthew:
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. —Pretty self explainatory
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.—He didn’t give them to anyone else now did he? Although he could have.

I agree that Catholocism is a “denomination” in this day and age. But since we can trace the papacy back to Peter through Apostolic succession, I would have to disagree with you, and state that we are the True Church of Jesus Christ, founded by Jesus himself.

I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians would have something to say about that let alone all Protestants.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think that Eastern Orthodox Christians would have something to say about that let alone all Protestants.

And that is where the Schism and the Reformation come in isn’t it?

Unless I am mistaken, the Orthodox Churches hold Apostolic Succession as well. Roman Catholics do believe their sacraments are valid.

 

[tmac1956]

First of all you are putting an ownership statement with the keys of the Kingdom. We simply do not agree there. Next, you are seriously downplaying that Jesus founded the Church upon himself (the stone which the builders rejected becoming the chief Cornerstone) with Peter being given the leadership role. The Scriptures are very clear.
As far as denominations go, we can debate who is THE Church and I will tell you that the Catholic church is a denomination and NOT The only true Church all day long.

That sounds like a personal and fallible interpretation of scripture to me. Ironically, there are many Protestants who have a different interpretation than you. So, therein lays the seminal issue. As Catholics, we have the Catholic Church to settle this and any other doctrinal disputes (led by the Holy Spirit), yet Protestants can only agree to disagree and split off forming yet another church in the ever-growing deluge of denominations. Surely, the Holy Spirit who can only reveal truth would not lead so many astray. Ultimately, if your position is correct, then an untold multitude of Christians were led into error and possible hell for 1500 years until the reformers came and revealed the “true” faith. That’s an astounding position to hold considering all of the evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The succession of Peter being all of the Catholic popes t date is very problematic to me for the simple reason that the Bible doesn’t support the notion as the Catholic church has chosen to define it.

Gabriel of 12;
Has anyone informed you that the Catholic Church canonized the books of the bible before man made new Christian theologies and church’s formed over 1200 years after the Catholic church put the books of the bible together and confirmed them as inspired of God?

Selllers;
First of all, Jesus was the stone that the builders rejected and ultimately became the Cornerstone. The Church is founded upon Christ with Peter being given a leadership role. Being given the keys to the Kingdom is not being put in charge of creating and inventing truths.

Gabriel of 12;

Lets clarify your statement from a biblical standpoint; First of all the builders referenced here refer to the Old covenant builders, who rejected Jesus thus the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d. The Old covenant keepers rejected Jesus of which their building was founded upon the Word of God. Now that the corner stone the old covenant builders rejected became the builder because the Word of God became flesh.

Jesus is the builder of a New Covenant. True Jesus is the Rock of our salvation. Jesus chose to ascend into heaven to prepare the many mansions in heaven that await us. IF this wasnt true, Jesus would not have told us. Before Jesus ascends into eternity he layed the foundation of his church which is his body upon Peter, and after he resurrects commands Peter to feed and tend his flock until he returns for his bride.

Peter and his successors in the Popes did not ever invent a truth; Peter and his successors revealed Jesus “Truth” to different peoples in different ages preaching the same Gospel of Jesus Christ unchanged for 2000 years and counting. When the Catholic church revealed the blessed Trinity to the World long after Jesus and Peter left the earth, she did not change anything, she only revealed to enemies of the body of Jesus Christ the Catholic Church, what Jesus and his apostles taught and believed. How is it that non-catholics come to believe in the blessed Trinity? Only throught the Catholic church revealed this Catholic doctrine by using scripture and Apostolic Sacred Tradition.

Now what makes the Catholic church the body of Jesus Christ of whom Jesus built his church upon? and of which he promised never to leave her? and promised to be with her always? never to leave her orphaned? Because it is only in the Catholic church since the resurrection that the Catholic church has been here, and it is only in the Catholic Church where Jesus is present to us bodily, blood, soul and divinity. No other faith has believed this before the bible was Written except the Catholic church

Sellers;
Secondly, all of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. This is shown throughout the Book of Acts

Gabriel of 12;
I agree with you here, but Jesus gave this power distinctly to Peter, and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom singularly. Jesus founder builder, Peter and the apostles foundation. The first brick Jesus layed down was Peter then the apostles making one body in Jesus Christ. What follows next is who is going to feed and tend the flock of Jesus Christ with all this power and authority? Jesus answers this from John 21, when he commands Peter to tend and feed his flock. This command was not given directly to each apostle, just to Peter before Jesus ascended to the Father.

 

[adstrinity]

Peter was wrong just as much as he was correct and was even confronted by St. Paul on doctrinal issues.

It was not doctrinal issues. It was a discipline issue. St. Paul confronted St. Peter because, as the leader, people were following his example when he tried to seperate himself from eating with the Gentiles. Paul saw that he was in error, and he was not teaching the error, but, people were following his example. To make sure this was not to get out of hand, St. Paul spoke up to make sure that the behaviour would be nipped in the bud and this would not define the Church.

 

[ufamtobie]

History yes, proof and facts? Well that’s very debatable and even protestable.

Sellers,

Why would anyone want to debate or protests against the Only Church that has the History! And the Documents, The Facts?

I know of one who would love and has protested against the History of the Catholic Church but he will never prevail over it, and that is satan. Do you mean to tell me that you are in agreement with satan unkownly of course, at least i hope so, to debate against this Church, then very well do so, but you, nor satan or any other will prevail over it and again, you can tell this by History. Amen

The History of the Catholic Church is Proof that the gates of hell can not prevail over it! Amen.

Ufam Tobie

 

[ParkerD]

From Matthew:
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. —Pretty self explainatory
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.—He didn’t give them to anyone else now did he? Although he could have.

I agree that Catholocism is a “denomination” in this day and age. But since we can trace the papacy back to Peter through Apostolic succession, I would have to disagree with you, and state that we are the True Church of Jesus Christ, founded by Jesus himself.

twopekinguys,
I suppose I should clarify my earlier comment on this thread. I don’t think verse 18 is “self-explanatory”.

If the word “it” in Matthew 16:18 were referring back to the word “church” rather than the word “rock”, then it would appear from the context that the word “church” refers to the group of people or “collective body of believers” who would be joining the organization that the apostles would be continuing to establish and carry on. It seems more likely, however, that the word “it” is referring back to the word “rock,” and has been noted by others, Peter would later teach that the word “rock” refers to Christ, as Peter explains in a similar way when he quotes the Old Testament about the “chief corner stone” and the “rock of offense” in his epistle, 1 Peter 2:6-8.

If the word “church” means the collective body of believers, then the way this group of believers prevails against the gates of hell is by (1) relying on Christ who is the chief corner stone of their faith and the author of their Salvation, and by (2) getting the same witness expressed by Peter, that Jesus is indeed the promised Christ, which witness Peter had expressed in verse 17.

Christ also will hold the keys to hell and open the gates of hell at the end of the Millenium, so He will prevail against the gates of hell and the powers of darkness, and let the prisoners out of their prison because they will finally bow the knee and confess (willingly without compulsion) that He is their Savior also. Satan will have been vanquished, and Christ will have been victorious as He promised. He is indeed the Rock, and He shall absolutely prevail over the powers of darkness.

 

[Sellers1]

Sellers,

Why would anyone want to debate or protests against the Only Church that has the History! And the Documents, The Facts?

I know of one who would love and has protested against the History of the Catholic Church but he will never prevail over it, and that is satan. Do you mean to tell me that you are in agreement with satan unkownly of course, at least i hope so, to debate against this Church, then very well do so, but you, nor satan or any other will prevail over it and again, you can tell this by History. Amen

The History of the Catholic Church is Proof that the gates of hell can not prevail over it! Amen.

Ufam Tobie

Pardon me but this statement would be inferior to even an infomercial.

 

[Sellers1]

It was not doctrinal issues. It was a discipline issue. St. Paul confronted St. Peter because, as the leader, people were following his example when he tried to seperate himself from eating with the Gentiles. Paul saw that he was in error, and he was not teaching the error, but, people were following his example. To make sure this was not to get out of hand, St. Paul spoke up to make sure that the behaviour would be nipped in the bud and this would not define the Church.

Ok, my mistake. It would be a behavior issue.

 

[Sellers1]

And that is where the Schism and the Reformation come in isn’t it?

Unless I am mistaken, the Orthodox Churches hold Apostolic Succession as well. Roman Catholics do believe their sacraments are valid.

So what? Wisconsin Lutherans do not believe that Catholic Sacrements are valid. Do you really care what they think?

 

[Sellers1]

That sounds like a personal and fallible interpretation of scripture to me. Ironically, there are many Protestants who have a different interpretation than you. So, therein lays the seminal issue. As Catholics, we have the Catholic Church to settle this and any other doctrinal disputes (led by the Holy Spirit), yet Protestants can only agree to disagree and split off forming yet another church in the ever-growing deluge of denominations. Surely, the Holy Spirit who can only reveal truth would not lead so many astray. Ultimately, if your position is correct, then an untold multitude of Christians were led into error and possible hell for 1500 years until the reformers came and revealed the “true” faith. That’s an astounding position to hold considering all of the evidence to the contrary.

You are assuming alot my friend. Your statement is also very mundane and very much resembles the garden variety of the Catholic argument about THE (only) Protestant viewpoint of everyone pre-Reformation.

 

[twopekinguys]

twopekinguys,
I suppose I should clarify my earlier comment on this thread. I don’t think verse 18 is “self-explanatory”.

If the word “it” in Matthew 16:18 were referring back to the word “church” rather than the word “rock”, then it would appear from the context that the word “church” refers to the group of people or “collective body of believers” who would be joining the organization that the apostles would be continuing to establish and carry on. It seems more likely, however, that the word “it” is referring back to the word “rock,” and has been noted by others, Peter would later teach that the word “rock” refers to Christ, as Peter explains in a similar way when he quotes the Old Testament about the “chief corner stone” and the “rock of offense” in his epistle, 1 Peter 2:6-8.

If the word “church” means the collective body of believers, then the way this group of believers prevails against the gates of hell is by (1) relying on Christ who is the chief corner stone of their faith and the author of their Salvation, and by (2) getting the same witness expressed by Peter, that Jesus is indeed the promised Christ, which witness Peter had expressed in verse 17.

Christ also will hold the keys to hell and open the gates of hell at the end of the Millenium, so He will prevail against the gates of hell and the powers of darkness, and let the prisoners out of their prison because they will finally bow the knee and confess (willingly without compulsion) that He is their Savior also. Satan will have been vanquished, and Christ will have been victorious as He promised. He is indeed the Rock, and He shall absolutely prevail over the powers of darkness.

With all due respect, I can honestly say I cannot follow your line of thinking in regard to this verse.

I really think you have to look at the verse, and take it for what it says and not try to over analyze and put your own spin on it.

You really sound like former President Clinton during his impeachment getting picky over the word “is”.

Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

 

[twopekinguys]

So what? Wisconsin Lutherans do not believe that Catholic Sacrements are valid. Do you really care what they think?

See post #43.

What does Wisconsin Lutherans have to do with what is being discussed?

 

[Louie1983]

First of all you are putting an ownership statement with the keys of the Kingdom. We simply do not agree there. Next, you are seriously downplaying that Jesus founded the Church upon himself (the stone which the builders rejected becoming the chief Cornerstone) with Peter being given the leadership role. The Scriptures are very clear.

As far as denominations go, we can debate who is THE Church and I will tell you that the Catholic church is a denomination and NOT The only true Church all day long.

Hi Seller1,

Yes the scriptures are indeed very clear, The church is founded on Christ however he has passed this authority on to St Peter here on earth. This is why he said to him whatever you bound on eartn shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Why would Christ change his name and his status (by calling him the rock)? This seems to be a significant act if our lord was not bestowing some sort of role on Peter right?

Why did it take 1500 years until this was seriously (and incorrectly i might add) challenged? The Papacy is strongly supported both in scripture and in tradition.

 

[Selene]

twopekinguys,
I suppose I should clarify my earlier comment on this thread. I don’t think verse 18 is “self-explanatory”.

If the word “it” in Matthew 16:18 were referring back to the word “church” rather than the word “rock”, then it would appear from the context that the word “church” refers to the group of people or “collective body of believers” who would be joining the organization that the apostles would be continuing to establish and carry on. It seems more likely, however, that the word “it” is referring back to the word “rock,” and has been noted by others, Peter would later teach that the word “rock” refers to Christ, as Peter explains in a similar way when he quotes the Old Testament about the “chief corner stone” and the “rock of offense” in his epistle, 1 Peter 2:6-8.

Hello ParkerD,

St. Peter’s name was changed to “Rock” by Christ Himself. There is a reason for it. If you look in the Bible, you will notice that God changes the names of people, and there are reasons for it. A change of name is a change of personality and a new mission. It means that the man will henceforth be a vassal (2 Kings 23:34; 24:17). To indicate that God is taking possession of their lives, God changes the name of Abraham (Genesis 17:5) of Sarah (Genesis 17:15), and of Jacob (Genesis 32:29).

St. Peter is the new Abraham, a quarry from which living stones are hewn (see Isaiah 51:1-3 and Matthew 3:9) , and the foundation on which Christ builds His community (the Church), Peter received a mission which was to be for the good of the whole people. Against the forces of evil, which are the powers of death, the Church builds on Peter and is assured of victory. Thus is confided to Peter, who recognized in Jesus the Son of the living God, the supreme mission of gathering men into a community in which they may receive a blessed and eternal life.

Alluding to Peter’s name “rock,” Jesus announces to Peter that, after he has repudiated his denial, he must strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32). This is really then the mission of St. Peter described by Luke in Acts: he finds himself at the head of the group gathered together in the Cenacle (Acts 1:13); he presides at the elction of Matthais (Acts 1:15); he judges Ananias and Sapphria (Acts 5:1-11); in the name of the other apostles who are with him, he proclaims to the crowds the Messianic glorifiication of the risen Christ and announces the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:14-36); he invites all men to baptism (Acts 2:37-
41) including the pagans (Acts 10:1-11:18).

Jesus entrusted to St. Peter the care of the entire flock, lambs, and sheep. It is in the light of the parable of the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-28) that we understand this mission. The good shepherd saves his sheep, gathered in one flock (John 10:16; 11:52) and they have life in abudance. Yes, it is true that Christ is the Rock and the Good Shepherd, but that mission was also given to St. Peter whose name was changed to “rock” and whom Christ instructed to be a “shepherd” to his flock (John 21).

Peace be with you,
Selene

 

[Worthy5]

twopekinguys,
I suppose I should clarify my earlier comment on this thread. I don’t think verse 18 is “self-explanatory”.

If the word “it” in Matthew 16:18 were referring back to the word “church” rather than the word “rock”, then it would appear from the context that the word “church” refers to the group of people or “collective body of believers” who would be joining the organization that the apostles would be continuing to establish and carry on. It seems more likely, however, that the word “it” is referring back to the word “rock,” and has been noted by others, Peter would later teach that the word “rock” refers to Christ, as Peter explains in a similar way when he quotes the Old Testament about the “chief corner stone” and the “rock of offense” in his epistle, 1 Peter 2:6-8.

If the word “church” means the collective body of believers, then the way this group of believers prevails against the gates of hell is by (1) relying on Christ who is the chief corner stone of their faith and the author of their Salvation, and by (2) getting the same witness expressed by Peter, that Jesus is indeed the promised Christ, which witness Peter had expressed in verse 17.

Christ also will hold the keys to hell and open the gates of hell at the end of the Millenium, so He will prevail against the gates of hell and the powers of darkness, and let the prisoners out of their prison because they will finally bow the knee and confess (willingly without compulsion) that He is their Savior also. Satan will have been vanquished, and Christ will have been victorious as He promised. He is indeed the Rock, and He shall absolutely prevail over the powers of darkness.

Come on my friend, you are not serious are you? I mean you are parsing the words in Mathew and you are not using the original Greek. You have to be kidding right? Here is one for you, let us say that when Christ said " You are Peter and on this…" at the same moment Christ placed his hands on Peter to indicate " this " referred to Peter. I do not know? Where you there? I was not.

I not sure why it is so difficult to understand that you cannot definitively interpret written language-this is why you need an authority to do so. Who is that authority? Was one established? Well let us see, we can at least say at the minimum (to even have a discussion) that Christ appeared on earth, suffered, died, rose again and left the earth. We seem to know this from 12 apostles that He selected. Well, if Christ made an authority that He is speaking through, it would seem to be the decendants of those apostles. If not, I suppose we can interpret all day and never have an answer. But can we at least agree that the original Greek should be read.

 

[cazayoux]

Peter is not the first actually, its John the Baptist.

John the Baptist was not an apostle.

I suppose if you want to be technical you can say Peter is the first but also is his brother.

Peter was not the first chosen chronologically, but is called the first.
‘First’ as he is called, is in reference to position, not chronology … as you have stated.

2nd the church is not a structure

No Catholic would argue this.
If every building on the planet turned to dust in an instant, the Catholic Church (community) would remain.

and the rock is clearly Christ.

Christ IS the cornerstone. No argument from Catholics on this.
Catholics do believe scripture records that Jesus said Peter (which means rock) was the rock upon which Jesus would build his church.
This is no way takes away that Jesus is THE rock.

so im not really sure why you cited that one.

Obviously the issue of 'rock’ness is not ‘clear’ as you stated.

The church has stood against the gates of hell many times.
and thats nice that Jesus told that to peter but honestly I dont think that has anything to do with a succession system of a physical church…

It’s not just ‘nice’ when Jesus says something, it is TRUTH … the Word of God.
Even Jesus changing Simon’s name signified a change in Simon’s ‘position’.
When God changes someone’s name, it is a very significant thing.
Abram → Abraham
Jacob → Israel
There are others.

Jesus gave Peter, and also the other apostles, authority.
“As the Father has sent me, so I send you”

JESUS is the one that gave them this authority.
The very first thing we see in this brand new church that Jesus founded was, in Acts chapter 1, the replacement of Judas.
The KJV calls this office a ‘bishopric’. The apostles were bishops.

We see Paul telling Timothy to appoint men to teach and to appoint even others.
Timothy was a man with teaching authority.
Authority he received from Paul, who received it from the apostles.

Don’t you realize that YOU trust the teaching authority of these men that were appointed by the apostles.

Two of our gospel accounts are from such men (that were not apostles): Mark and Luke.

Jesus told the apostles to teach to ALL of the world.
Were they practically able to do this in their lifetime? Of course not.
Some apostles went very far from Jerusalem (India or Britain) perfectly happy to teach without writing anything down (no scripture from them) and establish churches where the traveled.
These apostles had a teaching authority … and HAD to pass that teaching authority on to others to continue the church to be able to teach ALL of the world.

michel

 

[twopekinguys]

You are assuming alot my friend. Your statement is also very mundane and very much resembles the garden variety of the Catholic argument about THE (only) Protestant viewpoint of everyone pre-Reformation.

And yet you have nothing to offer to refute it.

The snyde comments like this one, and the one to Ufamtobie really diminish your credibility in discussing the issue in a calm and deliberate manner.

Everyone has tried to remain calm and respectful up to this point, let’s all do our best to keep it that way, shall we. This includes me by the way.

Peace