Response to MT's post

[MT1926]

This authority seems to be reserved strictly for Him, just as is the Father’s preeminence to know who will sit at His right and left.

If the authority was reserved strictly for Him, how did fallible men write the Bible?

I, again, am persuaded that Peter’s answer is locked up in Jesus’ question, who do YOU say I am… it was a learning curve in the moment.

So a revelation from God is ones own learning curve and not really something given to you by God?

Therefore, we too may have the keys to the kingdom of God.

I would argue this exact line of thinking is the root of all evil and the problem we have in the world today. Everyone think8ng they have the authority to do as they please.

To the third question: The second question tells my answer. God is no respecter of persons. His authority can be given to anyone who seeks His heart. If you get His heart, you may also get His hands.

And my response would be the same as the second. Many claim to have His heart and His hand, but in the end it is just a claim.

God Bless

 

[hope]

You said

that When you say Jesus spoke in Aramaic, you are guessing. As I am when I insist He was speaking Greek. However, the Greek language was the only popular language in His day and the Aramaic was secondary.

It is not a guess. We know Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic would have been His first language one he would have spoken to his close companions. Jesus might have spoken Greek but The common language would have been Aramaic. Spoken languages in the time of Jesus.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Have you considered hiring a sky writer? That way more people can see your response.

 

[JohnR77]

But you avoid the elephant in the room called exclusive. Peter was not alone in his assignment.

I agree, Peter got a set of keys, but Peter was not alone to get authority however.

Okay. Now, I see the problem. We have a different understanding of the meaning of the keys. You believe, if I understand you correctly, that they all get the keys.

So, I created the following. I hope you do not mind.

How to explain the meaning of the Keys in Matthew 16.
The Key - Lock metaphor that Jesus used as Caesarea Philippi

Some Protestants will say that they all get the symbolic “Key”
that Jesus gave to Peter. However, if that is what Jesus had intended then He used a metaphor that does not fit. This is explained below.

They will also contend that the Key does not represent authority over others as vicar, or representative, of Christ. Instead they will contend something like

“that Jesus gave Peter the keys to unlock the divine knowledge of God’s ways”

Now, if Jesus had intended what Protestants propose above it would have been much more fitting for Him to have used the metaphor of a “looking glass” rather than a “Key.” There would be nothing out of place if Jesus had wanted to give everyone a looking glass.

Some of the text below might seem slow at first, but if one works logically and methodically, step-by-step, the meaning will be clear to all.

So, we have to ask, “What is the meaning of the Keys ?”

A key has no meaning or purpose without a lock. So, we must also ask,
“What is the meaning and purpose of a lock ?”

A lock secures the contents of the thing being locked so that only the person who has the unique key designed for that lock can have access. Now, if everybody’s key fit that lock, then it would serve no purpose. It would keep no one out. A lock only has value because only one key works. Only one particular key (or set of duplicate keys,) out of the whole range of different possibilities of possible keys, can work.

Similarly, if everyone had that unique key designed for that lock then the lock would also have no meaning and serve no purpose.

However, every word that Jesus spoke had meaning and purpose.

Therefore, for the metaphor of the key that Jesus spoke of implies the power it yields is unique to one individual.

Notice that Jesus does not break or destroy the lock, so that everyone has access. Rather Jesus gives to Peter singularly the Key.

That is why Jesus switched from second person plural, “You” in Matthew 16:15, to second person singular in Matthew chapter 16 verses 17, 18, and 19.

The symbol below was written on Peter’s grave in Rome. The early Christians used this symbol to show the close connection between Jesus Christ, Peter, and the Keys Jesus gave to Peter.

http://www.defendingthebride.com/Bible/Keys/

 

[tgGodsway]

Some Protestants will say that they all get the symbolic “Key”
that Jesus gave to Peter. However, if that is what Jesus had intended then He used a metaphor that does not fit. This is explained below

It sounds like you’ve worked real hard here JohnR77.

You haven’t said anything here I can dispute or would want to. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of God, and Jesus said that Peter would bind and loose. I agree. The binding and loosening is the end result of one who possesses the keys to the kingdom of God.

The fact that the word keys here is almost non-existent in the rest of the N.T. says something. It is a metaphor that should not be enshrined as the CC has done.

Jesus has the keys of hell and death, is the only other place in the N.T. where the word comes up. the Pharisees possessed the “key of knowledge” in Luke. 11:52.
But to impose beyond these themes the idea that Peter was singled out of his apostleship to become a Bishop and head over all the Church here on earth, while Jesus is head over all the Church in heaven, … is an idea not found in Mt. 16 or any other place.

Was Peter an Apostle, among 11 others? yes he was… did he have spiritual authority over others? yes he did. Was he a teacher / evangelist / pastor, etc. probably all the above,

Did the other 11 Apostles, along with the inner circle of followers, recognize and agree with Peter as supreme Shepherd over them? There is not even one shred of evidence to this within the divine record of scripture, not even in Peter’s writings.

Peter said, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker of the glory that is going to be revealed. v2 Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight … v4 and when the chief Shepherd appears …”

Peter knew there was a chain of command that included a set of elders who were eye witnesses to Christ suffering. In this case, and by context, Peter was referring to his fellow apostles. But nowhere in his writings does he even attempt to pull rank. Only the opposite is true.

 

[Telstar]

OF COURSE YOU CAN MAKE THIS SPECIAL CASE! but it doesn’t mean that the scriptures actually teach it, or that we have a record of fellow-apostles acknowledging it and respecting it.

The Catholic Church has many writings that refer to it being the case, from the Apostles and their followers, throughout the entire history of the Church. That passage and many others throughout the Bible, also acknowledge the Primacy of St. Peter and the Authority that was given to the Church.

The problem is that Non-Catholics refuse to admit that any of those records are valid, or that the Bible passages mean what the Church says they mean, because it would turn their entire belief system on its head. They would have to look at themselves, and their own beliefs, in light of that being true. I can understand why someone would resist doing that, from a purely human perspective, but we’re not just talking about a simple matter of not wanting to admit that what we believe might in fact be wrong. We’re talking about the salvation of our souls.

How can anyone ever be sure that they are already “saved”, if they’re not subjecting themselves to the Authority of the Catholic Church, if that Authority was really given to Her by Jesus? That’s the real question that we all need to ask ourselves. Not only Non-Catholics, but many “cafeteria Catholics” who also have the same dilemma when they start to pick & choose between the Doctrines they “want” to believe, and those they want to ignore.

Jesus said that He hates the “lukewarm” and will vomit them out of His mouth. That’s a pretty scary thought. In the end, Jesus wants us all to love Him enough to follow Him, wherever He might want to lead us. We can only hope and pray that we make the right choice, and follow Him to the ends of the earth if that’s what He asks us to do.

 

[MT1926]

Peter said, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker of the glory that is going to be revealed. v2 Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight … v4 and when the chief Shepherd appears …”

Peter knew there was a chain of command that included a set of elders who were eye witnesses to Christ suffering. In this case, and by context, Peter was referring to his fellow apostles. But nowhere in his writings does he even attempt to pull rank. Only the opposite is true.

St. Peter isn’t just referring to his fellow apostles here. He is is writing this letter to the fellow elders of all of the local Churches.

This letter was written probably 35 years after the Resurrection. Are you seriously going to claim there was only 11 other Churches by then? Of which St. Paul already wrote letters to half of them?

You just need to believe he was only speaking to the other Apostles so you can ignore the fact that the Apostles handed on their authority to the leaders who were to hand on that authority to other faithful men.

2 Timothy 2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Peter is speaking to all of the elders appointed by them. Not just the Apostles but the successors of the Apostles.

Which brings up the question since you admit that St. Peter knew there was a chain of command (from the Bible), how come you believe we no longer need this chain of command? From the Bible please.

God Bless

 

[kainosktisis]

I’ve served in the military. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, but under him are others, & a chain of command follows.

This is how I see the relationship of Christ & the Church. Christ is the Head, but His representative until He returns is the Pope, followed by bishops, priests, & deacons, & the laity.

Many Protestant churches mimic this model by having a pastor with bishops/deacons/elders.

 

[JohnR77]

I will make new tangent thread on the Papacy and the Keys.
See

Best Way to Explain Papacy ? Matt 16 Isaiah 22? Sacred Scripture

Best Way to Explain Papacy ? Matt 16 Isaiah 22 ?? It is common for Catholic apologists to explain the Papacy by going to Matthew 16 and then to Isaiah 22. But as illustrated above the Isaiah passage (in isolation) is easily misinterpreted. Problem Everyone has a tendency toward being close-minded when it comes to learning about dying to oneself. So, obviously the Papacy will be problematic for the Protestant. The effects of Original Sin, that is, weakened will and darkened intellect, ma…