Real Problem with Isaiah 22 and the Keys

[jinc1019]

Justin, I just reviewed your posting history and find that you have submitted several threads relating to this topic, – some of which were very lengthly, and gave you the best of Catholic answers.

And here we go again. The only difference now, is that you are attempting to prove the apologists wrong, rather than continuing to seek for understanding.

Correct. I don’t believe in papal infallibility. I have made that clear many many times. That really doesn’t enter this conversation though because, as I already stated, I am not making the argument that disproving the importance of Isaiah 22 somehow proves papal infallibility to be false. I am not saying that at all so why does it matter what I think about infallibility?

 

[jinc1019]

Well, if the successor is not going to be given the same authority…why even have a successor?

 

[jinc1019]

This is key to understanding the whole passage of Isaiah.
The former Shebna had authority in the palace, as prime minister. This was not given to him by God, but by man.

However, with God’s bestowal of the* keys* to Eliakim, the prime minister, He is bestowing the Davidic line upon him. The Dynastic Oracle, as it was delivered by Nathan the prophet to David in 2 Sam. 7:12-16, is an “unconditional covenant” bestowed by God which will last forever, and His mercy will never to be withdrawn. We find this repeated in Psalm 89.

As King born in the line of David with authority to bestow the keys, Jesus gave this to Peter. Note well that this kingdom will last forever, unbroken.

I had traveled to the Holy Land years ago, and knowing how God chooses things that seem incidental to us, I was struck by the fact that the Upper Room of the Last Supper is located ABOVE David’s tomb which is there to this day. Since Jesus had asked the disciples to have THIS room prepared for them, I prayed for understanding as to why He chose it.

The New and Eternal Covenant promised to David in the O.T.was now being fulfilled in that Upper Room with Jesus’s words instituting it at the Last Supper. Not a lower room, or an adjacent room, but one directly above David’s tomb. Awesome! Simply beyond words that I was given the grace to understand this. I am not even sure whether I can put it into words, so I ask that the Holy Spirit confirm to whoever is reading this, the beauty of it.

Therefore, the succession does not end with Peter, but is forever established according to God’s sworn decree.

Very good answer. I would like to see someone confirm these assertions, but putting that aside, an excellent answer.

 

[jinc1019]

The line I omitted from my response to the OP: “Are you looking for reasons to leave, or to stay?”

I think that the OP is examining this bit of apologetics in a vacuum. This association with Isaiah 22 did not occur last week! It has been noted and employed most likely ever since the Apostles and early Christians had to make a persuasive argument with the Palestinian Jews, whom they sought to convert. As well, let us recall how Jesus “opened their (Apostles) minds to the scriptures” (Luke 24:45) Well, Isaiah 22 was included in those scriptures, was it not?

OP is clearly wrestling with granting intellectual assent to the origin, history and teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

While no offense is intended, the following is posed as illustrative of the nature of the search for the One Church. The Orthodox Churches call to the OP. But this poses another set of hurdles to overcome: Which Orthodox? How many councils to they recognize? Eastern or Oriental Orthodox? Which Patriarchate? Which biblical canon?

The OP’s search may not be ending, but only beginning.

I don’t agree with many things here, especially that The Orthodox Churches are “calling” to me…Some elements, yes. Others, no. And, yes you are right about the minds of the apostles being opened up…But the tradition of the Orthodox Church says those apostles did not hold this view about Isaiah 22. The idea that Catholics often assert that tradition has proven them correct is not always collaborated by you brothers and sisters in the Orthodox faith.

 

[po18guy]

As I mentioned before, I am not saying this somehow says there is no infallibility…I am only bringing it up because many Catholic apologists use this as a central argument. This was one of the primary arguments of Catholic apologists during the Reformation trying to stop the split, and Dr. Scott Hahn, one of the most prominent American apologists, has elevated it as the most important point on papal infallibility. It was one of the reasons he converted! So I am not the one saying this is important, Catholic Church leaders and apologists are.

It appears that you are having a problem with credulity, and that is not solved by argument, debate or evidence in contra. It is solved in the spiritual, rather than the intellectual realm.

Although it may not appear as initially satisfying, I strongly suggest that you take your incredulity to our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Those who suffered from incredulity in John 6 walked away from Him. Your solution, as I see it, is to approach Him. As well, Saint Augustine of Hippo addressed your exact problem when he wrote: “Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand” Understanding is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will accompany you and enlighten your intellect if you have the faith to believe that this will happen.

How long have you suffered this lack of belief? How many threads have you posted? How many posts have you answered, yet still remain in essentially the same place? Your answer is spiritual.

 

[jinc1019]

Very clever; but also illogical IMO
WHY?

1 God who is both “perfect” Mt. 5:48 and “consistant” Mal. 3:6

1. Has always chosen [John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you”] men that He placed in charge and give great authority and powers too.
2. If as some calim as is necessary for every framework of competring Faiths God did not do as is clearly evident in Mt. 16:19 He would have had to intend for His “One God; One Faith and One Church” to end with the demise of the Apostles. A IMPOSSIBLE to hold position.
3. Because of the God given mandate in Mt 28:19-20 cf:TEACH THE ENTIRE WORLD WHAT I TAUGHT YOU! absolutely requires Succession as it exist today
4. Peter in calling for a replacement of the deceased Judas /traitor [Acts 1:25] Followed by Christ Himself ADDING Paul to their ranks is both biblical and historical evidence that this is indeed God’s objective and plan.

So while I persoanlly hold to Isaiah 22 being a fulfilled Prophesy; it’s not needed to prove Papal Succession is God’s Will and reality.

God Bless,

Pat /PJM

Thanks for the “cleaver” remark, even if it is coupled with a criticism, it’s more than I usually get around here so I will take it!

I don’t disagree with your point that dispelling this Isaiah 22 connection somehow disproves Catholic teaching on Papal infallibility. I mentioned that several times already…but I want to make that clear again because you made that point as if it needed to be made.

Second, I am not saying that this somehow proves we don’t need succession. I believe in apostolic succession as a necessity instituted by Christ! The question is, was their a special office set aside for one of the bishops and not the others? Catholics would say yes, Orthodox would say no and I want to sort it out.

One of the most popular arguments from Catholic apologists in regards to this is Isaiah 22, and my point was, I don’t think it proves infallibility precisely because the previous holder of the “keys,” Shebna, lost those same keys precisely because he is fallible. I actually think it works against Catholics.

Some have suggested here that the keys were actually additionally authority given to Eliakim, not provided to Shebna, which would disprove my theological argument if true. However, I have not heard a major theological voice make that argument and I believe that is because that argument would undermine the whole idea that an office left vacant was being filled with the full authority of the previous office holder.

 

[Sirach2]

As I mentioned before, I am not saying this somehow says there is no infallibility…I am only bringing it up because many Catholic apologists use this as a central argument. This was one of the primary arguments of Catholic apologists during the Reformation trying to stop the split, and Dr. Scott Hahn, one of the most prominent American apologists, has elevated it as the most important point on papal infallibility. It was one of the reasons he converted! So I am not the one saying this is important, Catholic Church leaders and apologists are.

I have heard Dr. Hahn speak in my home town about his personal discovery – that the two readings [Is. 22 & Mt. 16] were both given on an important feast, perhaps the Chair of Peter on Feb. 22nd, not sure, since the readings rotate every three years, and it was not used this last February.

The O.T. reading merely foreshadows the gospel reading in Matthew, but does not prove it exclusively. The entire O.T. is a foreshadowing given to us by God to reveal Jesus, His Son. Let’s review some of your words.

If you say that Shebna never had the keys, then what office did he have? He had the same title, same level of authority, etc. They both were basically prime ministers to the king…How does it make sense that one would have keys and one would not?

Ah, yes – both men had authority, but GOD intervened and bestowed the Keys of David to Eliakim and removed Shebna, who occupied the office without Divine authority. HUGE difference. That is why I said it is key to your understanding to know just what those keys of David represent. Maybe it will help to read my post again. This is important today, that the Davidic line is carried through those to whom it was granted by Christ; i.e., to the apostles and their successors. In other faith denominations, men assume authority also, but they do not possess the Keys of David. Shebna did not have the Davidic keys, although he had authority. I hope you can grasp what I’m trying to share with you.

Let me know if I can explain anything in a better way.

 

[Sirach2]

It appears that you are having a problem with credulity, and that is not solved by argument, debate or evidence in contra. It is solved in the spiritual, rather than the intellectual realm.

“Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand”

[sign]Beautiful post, Po18guy![/sign]

 

[Nita]

Isaiah 22:15-25 reads as follows:

"Thus says the Lord God of hosts: Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is master of the household, and say to him: 16 What right do you have here? Who are your relatives here, that you have cut out a tomb here for yourself, cutting a tomb on the height, and carving a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 The Lord is about to hurl you away violently, my fellow. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there your splendid chariots shall lie, O you disgrace to your master’s house! 19** I will **thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your post.

20 **On that day **I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 On that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken."

…
Here, the “keys” symbolize dynastic succession, as Scott Hahn and others would argue. But, notice that at the very beginning of the story, the previous man who held the position now being given to Eliakim (the one being given the keys), was Shebna. And Shebna had his authority, meaning his keys, taken away from him because of pride. Doesn’t this suggest that authority can be lost? After all, Shebna, who lost his authority, was once the possessor of the keys himself.

.

Nowhere does it say that the Lord God took the keys from Shebna while he was still living and gave them to someone else (Eliakim).
It says God will intervene to end Shebna’s life. That is how God removes -“thrusts” - him from his office. “On that day…” God hands Shebna’s authority and the keys to Eliakim.

 

[EricFilmer]

One of the most popular arguments from Catholic apologists in regards to this is Isaiah 22, and my point was, I don’t think it proves infallibility precisely because the previous holder of the “keys,” Shebna, lost those same keys precisely because he is fallible. I actually think it works against Catholics.

Comparing Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16 is a matter of biblical typology. In each and every case of typology, the Old Testament foreshadowing is always lesser, more limited, inferior, etc. to its New Testament fulfillment. For example, in John 6 consider the comparison between the manna of the Old Testament and the Eucharist.

According to the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, the Messiah would be a king like David and a prophet like Moses. This is another example of typology (i.e., David and Moses were biblical “types” of Christ). Using the same line of reasoning you’ve presented, one could argue that because David and Moses were fallible, then Christ must be fallible as well. Obviously, this is not the case. In the Old Testament, fallible kings were served by fallible stewards. But in the New Testament fulfillment there is an infallible king served by an infallible steward. Keep in mind that a steward derives his authority from a king, and is a reflection on the authority of that king.

 

[Sirach2]

Nowhere does it say that the Lord God took the keys from Shebna while he was still living and gave them to someone else (Eliakim).
It says God will intervene to end Shebna’s life. That is how God removes -“thrusts” - him from his office. “On that day…” God hands Shebna’s authority and the keys to Eliakim.

Nor is there evidence in scripture that Eliakim had to await Shebna’s death before the keys were given to him. In previous times, God rejected King Saul immediately after his disobedience, and David was anointed* **before ***Saul’s death.

1 Sam. 15:13. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward: and Samuel rose up, and went to Ramatha. 14. But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. 15. And the servants of Saul said to him: Behold now an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
16. The Lord said to Samuel: How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected as king of Israel?

 

[Sirach2]

Dear Jinc1019,

As I prayed for you at Adoration today (First Friday), I think we need to go back to the Act of Faith I shared with you earlier here.

"I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."

No matter how much you search for proof texts, whether in scripture or tradition, it still comes down to whom will you believe? Is God’s authority and absolute Truth on trial? We assent simply because He revealed it, who does not deceive us, and who has said through His Son, “He who hears you, Hears ME.”

Very good answer.** I would like to see someone confirm these assertions**, but putting that aside, an excellent answer.

I send you truth, but you want MORE truth and confirmation. Of what? The scriptures I posted? The tomb of David below the Upper Room? The issue you deal with is needing to put your fingers in the wounds before you will believe. Maybe doubting St. Thomas can intercede for you to open your heart to faith and let God be God to you.

Peace.

 

[jinc1019]

Dear Jinc1019,

As I prayed for you at Adoration today (First Friday), I think we need to go back to the Act of Faith I shared with you earlier here.

"I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."

No matter how much you search for proof texts, whether in scripture or tradition, it still comes down to whom will you believe? Is God’s authority and absolute Truth on trial? We assent simply because He revealed it, who does not deceive us, and who has said through His Son, “He who hears you, Hears ME.”

I send you truth, but you want MORE truth and confirmation. Of what? The scriptures I posted? The tomb of David below the Upper Room? The issue you deal with is needing to put your fingers in the wounds before you will believe. Maybe doubting St. Thomas can intercede for you to open your heart to faith and let God be God to you.

Peace.

First of all, I appreciate your prayers. Much of what you say, although not all of it, is true. To some degree, religion requires faith…Faith in God I have never had a problem, faith in specific religious teachings I have.

I would hardly have called myself a Christian five years ago, and today, I am absolutely certain of it. Why? Precisely because I did exactly what I am doing now. Perhaps you cannot understand that, but for me, I find that I learn a lot more questioning, fighting, and approaching problems from all sides than I do just submitting to perceived authority.

I agree with your assertion that we should submit to proper authority but who says the Catholic Church is that authority? I am sure you will say Jesus but many Christians, including Orthodox Christians, disagree. It’s a lot simpler for you than it is for me, and that is not at all a disparaging remark. I wish I could come to your conclusions so easily, but I just can’t. And quite frankly, I am a better person for that because it works for me. When I finally do accept something, I am able to accept it all the way, without a single worry or doubt…Because I have already questioned everything I knew would be important to me beforehand.

 

[Sirach2]

Peace, and may God guide your journey and your faith.

 

[PJM]

=jinc1019;10103541]Thanks for the “cleaver” remark, even if it is coupled with a criticism, it’s more than I usually get around here so I will take it!

Second, I am not saying that this somehow proves we don’t need succession. I believe in apostolic succession as a necessity instituted by Christ! The question is, was their a special office set aside for one of the bishops and not the others? Catholics would say yes, Orthodox would say no and I want to sort it out.

I have a bible document with 50+ Peter First: arguments that assures Mt. 16:19-20 are exactly what Christ [God] says they are

The premise then for a single set of Faith beliefs is founded on and flows directly from this first reality of Only One God.

Because all of Christianity agrees on Only “One God”This then leads us to the foundational issue; one widely disputed, widely and incorrectly understood; and one seldom accepted outside of the Catholic Church which is that “Only One Church” is also this same One-God’s Will and the reality of biblical teaching. I

There is only One “Infallible rule” for right understanding of the Bible. It is this: Never-ever; may, can or does one verse, passage or teaching, make void, invalidate, override, or contradict; when rightly understood, another part of the Bible. The reason is obvious. Were this even the slightest possibility [its not], then the Bible would be worthless to learn or teach the Faith of Jesus Christ, and the Blessed Trinity. Amen!

Argument Number [3] Matthew 16:15 -19 “Jesus saith to them: But whom do you [1] say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.[2] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [3] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock [4] I will build my church, [5] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [6] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.[7[/COLOR]] And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

Explanation:

The reason this is the most widely disputed set of verses in the entire bible is that there is, nor can there be any grounds for any religion other than Catholism; if it is true. [1] Here Jesus is asking the Apostles as a group a question. But it is Peter alone; Divinely Inspired who makes reply on behalf of all of them. A clear indication that already some degree of his leadership is evident. [2] Jesus confirms Peter in the Holy Spirit by clarifying that he was speaking through and for God [the Father… Though the Holy Spirit] what The Father wanted him to proclaim. A Divinely Inspired proclamation! [3] Jesus now changes the name of “Simon” to “Peter” [which is the framework for present Tradition of Popes-new name practice]. When ever God changes the name of a person it is indicative of great grace and expectations of God for that person. [Abram to Abraham for example] 4] It is no accident that “Peter alone” is mentioned. Just as there was a High Priest heading the hierarchy of the Jews; so too would there be One Only in Charge and empowered in this new “church” founded on the New Covenant; which voided the one in existence up to that moment. [Jer.31:31, Lk. 22:20, Heb. 8:8 & 13] …[5] Highly significant are the next words of Christ: “I [God] will build [He alone is the architect] of “My church” [singular: one and only One] desired, wanted or needed to accomplish Christ mandated Mission. The term “church” is invented here by Christ to clarify and make exceedingly clear that what He is doing is Founding a New, Separate, Different and overriding religion. The choice of location God selected was no accident and indeed is a critical part of right understanding. Caesarea Philippi [verse 13] was the site of the areas largest Pagan Temple; so clearly implied here is the task of Peter to overcome this Pagan-faith-practice, and supplant it with God’s own truth. There were Pagan Temples and Jewish Synagogues in existence at the time; but NO “church.” 6] How the handing on the Keys essential for entry into Heaven itself by God directly to Peter is ignored, overlooked and by intent denied is astounding! How can anyone honestly doubt the intent of God is doing this? [7] The terms chosen by Christ when rightly understood in the context of “binding and loosing” which were very common Rabbinical terms of Power and freedom of Governance; fully enforceable at Law. Cites were then often walled and fortified as was Jerusalem itself; with real gates, real doors and a real “gate-keeper” who unlocked them in the morning for commerce and locked them at night for security. This “holder of the Key’s” was most often the “Prime Minister” who answered directly and only to the King. This is the precise role Christ envisioned and implemented through the selection of Peter.

 

[po18guy]

I agree with your assertion that we should submit to proper authority but who says the Catholic Church is that authority? I am sure you will say Jesus but many Christians, including Orthodox Christians, disagree. It’s a lot simpler for you than it is for me, and that is not at all a disparaging remark. I wish I could come to your conclusions so easily, but I just can’t. And quite frankly, I am a better person for that because it works for me. When I finally do accept something, I am able to accept it all the way, without a single worry or doubt…Because I have already questioned everything I knew would be important to me beforehand.

The Catholic and the Orthodox are the only two possibilities as to being the Church that Christ founded. Every other ecclesial community on earth traces to one or the other. In truth, both come from the original, united Church. However, and this is huge, the Orthodox are not a monolithic community - they have their geographical, doctrinal and canonical divisions and no one is in charge of the entire Orthodox world. They exist as separate but equal Patriarchates, as I understand it. Some hold to three ecumenical councils and some to more. How will you ever choose? How will you know?

You still need to go before Christ Himself for your answer.

You might also watch some of the episodes of “The Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi. Listen to the stories of atheists, Jews, and protestants of every stripe as they give their reasons for converting. Amazing testimonies.

 

[Nita]

Nor is there evidence in scripture that Eliakim had to await Shebna’s death before the keys were given to him. In previous times, God rejected King Saul immediately after his disobedience, and David was anointed* **before ***Saul’s death.

1 Sam. 15:13. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward: and Samuel rose up, and went to Ramatha. 14. But the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. 15. And the servants of Saul said to him: Behold now an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
16. The Lord said to Samuel: How long will you grieve for Saul, whom I have rejected as king of Israel?

If you are familiar with the whole record of Saul and David, you know that David did not assume the kingship of the Israel until after Saul was dead. It was many years after the anointing before David would assume the role and authority of king of Israel.

David seemed to understand that God would determine when he should actually receive and exercise the role of king – and that it would not occur while Saul was still living. He always recognized Saul as the one anointed by God, and he respected that anointing. (2 Sam 1:14 ***“How is it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?”) ***David never sought to depose Saul; and above all he never sought to take Saul’s life. (1 Sam 24 and 26 )

I realize the Isaiah passage does not explicitly state that Shebna had to die before the keys were handed on. Jinc seemed to think the passage showed that they were passed on while Shebna was still living. I was pointing out that the passage did not say that.

As to when the keys were handed on, it may not be absolutely explicit, but there is certainly a strong indication that it is after Shebna’s death. God first speaks of how He will deal with Shebna, including his death (Isaiah 22:15-19). In the next verse (vs 20), God does indicate timing. He says, “In** that day **I will call my son Eliakim…” (Not “now”, at the time He is speaking, but “in that day”)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jinc1019,

That is how Dr. Scott Hahn described the event. In other words, the REASON Eliakim has the keys is because he filled an office (which in modern times is the papal office). The keys denote succession, that’s the point. If you say that Shebna never had the keys, then what office did he have? He had the same title, same level of authority, etc. They both were basically prime ministers to the king…How does it make sense that one would have keys and one would not?

I’ve never read Scott Hahn’s argument. If what you say represents what he actually argued, I don’t agree with him From what I’ve read of magisterial documents, there is no mention of the keys being handed down in succession; rather, the keys always remain with St. Peter. St. Peter is ever present in his office (the papal office) through the Spirit. The authority of the keys, which is possessed by St. Peter always, is shared with every holder of his office. And the holder of the office shares the authority of the keys with his brother bishops, as St. Peter had shared the authority of the keys with his fellow Apostles.

The holder of the office may lose the office for some reason, but the office (the Petrineness, so to speak) ever remains with the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

As I mentioned before, I am not saying this somehow says there is no infallibility…I am only bringing it up because many Catholic apologists use this as a central argument. This was one of the primary arguments of Catholic apologists during the Reformation trying to stop the split, and Dr. Scott Hahn, one of the most prominent American apologists, has elevated it as the most important point on papal infallibility. It was one of the reasons he converted! So I am not the one saying this is important, Catholic Church leaders and apologists are.

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

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jinc1019]

If you are familiar with the whole record of Saul and David, you know that David did not assume the kingship of the Israel until after Saul was dead. It was many years after the anointing before David would assume the role and authority of king of Israel.

David seemed to understand that God would determine when he should actually receive and exercise the role of king – and that it would not occur while Saul was still living. He always recognized Saul as the one anointed by God, and he respected that anointing. (2 Sam 1:14 ***“How is it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?”) ***David never sought to depose Saul; and above all he never sought to take Saul’s life. (1 Sam 24 and 26 )

I realize the Isaiah passage does not explicitly state that Shebna had to die before the keys were handed on. Jinc seemed to think the passage showed that they were passed on while Shebna was still living. I was pointing out that the passage did not say that.

As to when the keys were handed on, it may not be absolutely explicit, but there is certainly a strong indication that it is after Shebna’s death. God first speaks of how He will deal with Shebna, including his death (Isaiah 22:15-19). In the next verse (vs 20), God does indicate timing. He says, “In** that day **I will call my son Eliakim…” (Not “now”, at the time He is speaking, but “in that day”)

You make good points, but I don’t know what the point of the passage is if Eliakim is only to inherit the authority AFTER Shebna dies and loses his position naturally. That just makes no sense at all in context.

Either way though, 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.