Real Problem with Isaiah 22 and the Keys

[jinc1019]

Are you sure about this? The keys is not connected with “papal infallibility,” but with papal primacy. Please read Pastor Aeternus.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am not saying they are at all…I actually think it’s related ONLY to primacy as well, but I have heard Catholic apologists make that connection as well.

 

[Sirach2]

All I am saying is, I think this is a very poor “support” passage Catholics often use to buttress their argument on authority because the passage shows authority can be lost.

I don’t believe any pope in Catholic history has lost his authority. Nor do I find evidence that this may some day happen in the future. Theoretically, even if authority could happen to be lost, the OFFICE [keys] will** never** be lost. Did you not read Ps. 89 and the passage I gave you regarding God’s eternal promise of the Davidic line? How can you set this aside?

 

[EricFilmer]

…the point is that the authority can be lost and given to another, regardless of when that happens, it can happen. So hypothetically, not that I agree with this view, a holder of the office can be cast out for their sins, thus making the idea that the pope can lose his authority valid under this passage alone. All I am saying is, I think this is a very poor “support” passage Catholics often use to buttress their argument on authority because the passage shows authority can be lost.

Nothing you’ve stated in this thread is problematic for the concept of the infallibility of the office of the papacy, its authority or its primacy.
Do you have a response to the (name removed by moderator)ut I gave in Post #12 and Post #30?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I say never mind Isaiah 22. It is corroborative. We have a clear, direct statement of Christ to Peter. Who needs more? We have Peter being mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next is 'beloved disciple" John at just 29 times. The rest even less. We see Peter’s shadow healing the sick. Peter walking on water. Jesus telling Peter that Satan has demanded to sift him like wheat. Peter asked to “strengthen your brothers” Peter paying the tax for Jesus and himself. We have Peter silencing the discussion in Acts 15. We have Peter words alone converting 3,000 on the Pentecost. We see Peter alone receiving the vision making all foods clean. It just goes on and on and on. Of the twelve, why only Peter?

Read the Wiki of James Cardinal Gibbons. He voted in favor of infallibility. I dare not consider myself enlightened above him or any of the others who so voted.

But again how do you just connect St. Peter to the Papacy? No one is disputing St. Peter’s importance. In fact, the Orthodox fast for the days leading up to his (and St. Paul’s) Feast Day. They only 3 other times the Orthodox would fast for a period of time is for Lent, Advent, and the days leading to the Dormition. So Jesus, Jesus, Mary, and then Sts. Peter and Paul. No doubt his importance is not lost among them. But then how do we connect St. Peter’s importance and role with the Papacy? Curious that as you say, St. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament, yet there is zero mention of any office or passing of the keys.

 

[Sirach2]

But again how do you just connect St. Peter to the Papacy? …] But then how do we connect St. Peter’s importance and role with the Papacy?

Hi Constantine,

Though I do not follow your posts, I am vaguely aware that you have moved toward Eastern Orthodox beliefs. That being so, you and I and others here can debate till the cows come home about the papacy without any resolution.

If Rome has not been able to reconcile this problem with the EO for centuries, then I can’t see how us laymen can even attempt to discuss it with any measure of productive fruitfulness. It seems rather challenging on your part. Can you allow us to practice our faith, and you practice yours … in peace?

 

[EricFilmer]

jinc1019, have you quit this thread?
I’m still waiting for your response to what I presented in Post #12 and Post #30.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church which had the authority to countermand scripture as to circumcision (Acts 15) most certainly had the authority to appoint successors!

This statement is a misrepresentation. The First Council of Jerusalem did not decide anything on their own. They considered the Divine Revelation given to St. Paul (as to one comissioned by Christ to preach to the Gentiles) and St. Peter’s vision and experience with Cornellius. The question was if Jewish customs and laws were to be applied to Gentiles for them to be Christians or not. They did not change anything in Scripture, Jews were still asked to follow Jewish laws and customs, and Gentiles were not. They did not drop Jewish custom all together.