Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[josie_L]

Here is the thoughts of Origen I commented on above.

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . .a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

I have to believe the teaching here with Matthew was transmitted by Origen to his students. Origen was indeed one the greatest teachers and minds to come along in this early period. How many did his thinking influence and inspire here? Many I would suggest.

Also as to the following era and the primacy.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php*

The support given by “catholicbridge” is laudable but not exhaustive, so I will include another quote from an Eastern Father that coincides with our Catholic understanding of primacy:

EPHRAIM

 

[frjohnmorris]

To add to this:

If the Pope had the authority to deal with Nestorianism, why was it necessary to have the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 to deal with the controversy? History is clear. The ancient Popes lacked the authority to unilaterally deal with doctrinal controversies. Only an Ecumenical Council had that authority, not the Pope. In the ancient Church a council resolved every doctrinal controversy. None of them were resolved by the Bishop of Rome issuing a decree ex cathedral. As always, Roman Catholics read back into history their modern doctrine of the papacy. It was only natural that St. Cyril would seek the support of Rome as the senior Bishop of the Church.
It was actually Nestorius who persuaded Theodosius II to call an Ecumenical Council to deal with his conflict with St. Cyril.
If St. Cyril taught papal supremacy, one would expect that his successor Dioscorus would have held the same view. He did not. He rejected the Tome of Leo and would not even allow it to be read at the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449. To this day, the non-Chalcedonians cite the acceptance of the Tome of Leo as the chief reason for their refusal to accept the Council of Chalcedon. They forget that before the Tome of Leo was read to the Council, St. Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch was read and accepted.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that in reading Matt 16:13 on wards that in this passage Jesus askes His desciples this question- “Who do people say I am?” “They replied some say… and then Jesus asked them “and you He said to them “Who do you say I am?” ““You are the the Messiah Simon Peter answered. “The Son of theliving God.” Jesus said…” No mere man has revealed this to you but my Heavenly Father”…19…”.I will entrust to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to you.” In reading these passages of Matt., it really seems to me that Jesus was very expliect in whaat he was saying in that because it was Peter who said that Jesus was the Son of the Living God and not the other desciples and so He entrusted the keys of Heaven to Peter, it seems to me that if Jesus was entrusting the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to all of the desciples He would have said so. and I think also that the Gospel writers would have said that was so if that was Jesus meant to do give the Keys to all after saying what Peter said to Jesus in reply to His qustion of who you say I am. It is heard for me to see how anyone can read it any other way but to say that peter was to be thehead of the Church on earth.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It seems to me that in reading Matt 16:13 on wards that in this passage Jesus askes His desciples this question- “Who do people say I am?” “They replied some say… and then Jesus asked them “and you He said to them “Who do you say I am?” ““You are the the Messiah Simon Peter answered. “The Son of theliving God.” Jesus said…” No mere man has revealed this to you but my Heavenly Father”…19…”.I will entrust to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to you.” In reading these passages of Matt., it really seems to me that Jesus was very expliect in whaat he was saying in that because it was Peter who said that Jesus was the Son of the Living God and not the other desciples and so He entrusted the keys of Heaven to Peter, it seems to me that if Jesus was entrusting the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to all of the desciples He would have said so. and I think also that the Gospel writers would have said that was so if that was Jesus meant to do give the Keys to all after saying what Peter said to Jesus in reply to His qustion of who you say I am. It is heard for me to see how anyone can read it any other way but to say that peter was to be thehead of the Church on earth.

The Greek word used in this passage is dOsO which means, “will be giving.” It does not mean entrust. Our Lord did give to St. Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in John 20:22-23, but He gave the same authority to the other Apostles. The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven is the authority to pronounce absolution. Our Lord did not give St. Peter anything that He did not give the other Apostles. There is no question that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles or even that the Bishop of Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor. That is not the issue that divides us. What divides us is that the Popes began to take more and more power on themselves and began to try to rule the Church as the medieval absolute monarch that they were over Rome and central Italy. That is an opinion shared by most historians. To restate it, the rise of the papacy was because the Popes began to take upon themselves the role of the monarch over Rome and central Italy to fill the vacuum that was left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Any basic Western Civ. text will tell you that. As long as the Popes confined their authority to the West the East respected the independence of the Western Patriarchate and did not interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Church. However, when the Popes began to try to extend their authority over the East, the Eastern Patriarchs rejected the papal claims as an unjustified innovation. Unfortunately, Rome pressed the matter and sent Cardinal Humber to Rome and he caused the schism. Although it is true that the arrogant Cardinal only excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Crusaders finished the job when they took Antioch in 1099 and threw out the legitimate Patriarch and replaced him with a Latin prelate. Rome continued to appoint a Latin Patriarch of Antioch until the 1960s. Read a scholarly work on the subject like Runciman’s The Eastern Schism, or a general history of Christianity like Walker’s A History of the Christian Church, not something put on EWTV or a Roman Catholic web site filled with propaganda.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

The Greek word used in this passage is dOsO which means, “will be giving.” It does not mean entrust. Our Lord did give to St. Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in John 20:22-23, but He gave the same authority to the other Apostles. The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven is the authority to pronounce absolution. Our Lord did not give St. Peter anything that He did not give the other Apostles. There is no question that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles or even that the Bishop of Rome enjoyed a primacy of honor. That is not the issue that divides us. What divides us is that the Popes began to take more and more power on themselves and began to try to rule the Church as the medieval absolute monarch that they were over Rome and central Italy. That is an opinion shared by most historians. To restate it, the rise of the papacy was because the Popes began to take upon themselves the role of the monarch over Rome and central Italy to fill the vacuum that was left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Any basic Western Civ. text will tell you that. As long as the Popes confined their authority to the West the East respected the independence of the Western Patriarchate and did not interfere in the internal affairs of the Western Church. However, when the Popes began to try to extend their authority over the East, the Eastern Patriarchs rejected the papal claims as an unjustified innovation. Unfortunately, Rome pressed the matter and sent Cardinal Humber to Rome and he caused the schism. Although it is true that the arrogant Cardinal only excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Crusaders finished the job when they took Antioch in 1099 and threw out the legitimate Patriarch and replaced him with a Latin prelate. Rome continued to appoint a Latin Patriarch of Antioch until the 1960s. Read a scholarly work on the subject like Runciman’s The Eastern Schism, or a general history of Christianity like Walker’s A History of the Christian Church, not something put on EWTV or a Roman Catholic web site filled with propaganda.

Fr. John

So what you are saying then is that while Peter was the lader of the Apostles, he really had no power at all just a figurehead.

 

[spina1953]

I used my St. Joseph edition of the Catholic Bible that was translated from the Original Languages with critical use of all Ancient Sources and in my Bible in Matt. it says’ entrust’. I do know that those who translate one language to another use the best way to phrase to get the best meaning of the original language and intent. I ill agree that not every tranlator will use the same words to exact the best meaning of the text, as some words are not really translatible into another language. I am sure that they used the bst translators and it took them some while to decide on the best word t use to get the best meaning of the original word into English.

 

[frjohnmorris]

So what you are saying then is that while Peter was the lader of the Apostles, he really had no power at all just a figurehead.

He had no authority to unilaterally do anything. When someone presides over a meeting according to normally accepted standards of parliamentary procure he or she is not to express their own opinon on the subject under discussion without giving up the chair to someone else. I would argue that St. Peter had a same position over the Apostles. He presided over them, but was subject to the authority of the college of the Apostles like any other Apostle. Galatians 2:11-13 shows that St. Paul did not hesitate to correct St. Peter. In Acts. 15, we read that St. Peter lacked the authority to decide for himself what provisions of the Jewish law Gentile converts had to follow. Instead, he had to bring the matter to the other Apostles for confirmation of his vision. There is nothing in the Holy Scriptures that indicate that St. Peter had anything even close to the authority claimed by modern Popes. It is not in the Bible. It is not in the Ecumenical Councils or the consensus of the Fathers. Most importantly, it is not in the historical practice of the ancient Church.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

If Peter had no authority then he was just a figurehead and nothing more. generally speaking most leaders have some authority but guess that although Peter was a leader that was just some honorary title Jesus gave him.

 

[dzheremi]

This was among today’s readings during the liturgy
Acts 15:36-16:5:

Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek. And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Hmmm…now why did St. Luke seemingly forget to mention that it was actually St. Peter deciding/“confirming” the decrees himself for all? Strange, that…

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the Pope had the authority to deal with Nestorianism, why was it necessary to have the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 to deal with the controversy?

Nestorius, anticipating the ultimatum which was about to be delivered, convinced Emperor Theodosius II to summon a general council This is not a contingent on the prior facts in sequence.

History is clear.

I believe so also yet I content you are attempting to read Vatican I exclusively into antiquity instead of viewing its as you would the Trinity., Incarnation, and a slew of other doctrines including here with the Nature of Christ.

The ancient Popes lacked the authority to unilaterally deal with doctrinal controversies. Only an Ecumenical Council had that authority, not the Pope. In the ancient Church a council resolved every doctrinal controversy.

Not so by the very chain of events we are discussing among others and the Canons. You are basing and reading Papal Authority as understood today at this specific moment into this, which I admit isn’t in itself conclusive, geez, but I am presenting the sequence of events through history which indeed are consistent with correctly understood development in definition of the Primacy.

None of them were resolved by the Bishop of Rome issuing a decree ex cathedral. As always, Roman Catholics read back into history their modern doctrine of the papacy.

Here your suggesting doctrine isn’t further defined, yet you already concede this on thread. As to who is an isn’t reading backwards is a common of Christians from all areas of Christianity. The idea is to then understand it in forward progress as below. Infallible was already addressed with St Cyprian and his thinking on Rome and its authority

It was only natural that St. Cyril would seek the support of Rome as the senior Bishop of the Church.

Natural, no Father its was Canon and God given authority which Cyril recognized, and as already discussed on this thread and was the correct way to contend with the differences in theological understanding to seek consensus.

It was actually Nestorius who persuaded Theodosius II to call an Ecumenical Council to deal with his conflict with St. Cyril.

Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine I, charging Nestorius with heresy. The Pope agreed and gave Cyril his authority to serve a notice to Nestorius to recant his views within ten days or else be excommunicated. Before acting on the Pope’s commission, Cyril convened a synod of Egyptian bishops which condemned Nestorius as well. Cyril then sent four suffragan bishops to deliver both the Pope’s commission as well as the synodal letter of the Egyptian bishops. Cyril sent a letter to Nestorius known as “The Third Epistle of Saint Cyril to Nestorius.” This epistle drew heavily on the established Patristic Constitutions and contained the most famous article of Alexandrian Orthodoxy: “The Twelve Anathemas of Saint Cyril.” In these anathemas, Cyril excommunicated anyone who followed the teachings of Nestorius. Nestorius, anticipating the ultimatum which was about to be delivered, convinced Emperor Theodosius II to summon a general council through which Nestorius hoped to convict Cyril of heresy and thereby vindicate his own teachings. “Wiki Pedia”

If St. Cyril taught papal supremacy, one would expect that his successor Dioscorus would have held the same view.

Come on, how do come to this conclusion, what St Cyril thought and in fact stated is self evident from this thread. What Dioscorus thought is relevant to a preponderance of evidence how? As far as Cyrils thinking on Christa nature I see no issue.

He did not. He rejected the Tome of Leo and would not even allow it to be read at the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449. To this day, the non- Chalcedonians cite the acceptance of the Tome of Leo as the chief reason for their refusal to accept the Council of Chalcedon. They forget that before the Tome of Leo was read to the Council, St. Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch was read and accepted.

St Cyril thought The Tome was to sympathetic to the Antioch school of Christology, which lead to the thinking of Nestorius. He agreed with the Hypostatic Union. Nevertheless isn’t this a perfect example of Doctrinal Definition again.

Also I disagree with your connection in Matthew with the connection of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and their meaning in relation to the power to bind and loose. They cannot be interpreted as the same. I believe and maintain the Keys are a charisma. a give from Jesus Christ which is the Teaching Authority of the Church when correctly understood and applied is indeed infallible. This has nothing to with ordination of the elect and the infallibility of the elects power to forgive sin or the equality of the Bishops in apostolic succession. We will have to disagree or address the issue in depth. I posted a fair amount of thinking on this from antiquity to the Protestant scholars of this very day which btw if your following you see even their thinking is very close to Rome since Lambeth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hmmm…now why did St. Luke seemingly forget to mention that it was actually St. Peter deciding/“confirming” the decrees himself for all? Strange, that…

When you meet him in heaven you can ask that very question what does it have do with the conversation?

 

[frjohnmorris]

If Peter had no authority then he was just a figurehead and nothing more. generally speaking most leaders have some authority but guess that although Peter was a leader that was just some honorary title Jesus gave him.

Exactly what title did Our Lord give St. Peter? He called him the rock, because He builds His Church on the Simon’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not on the person of St. Peter. Even if you accept the Roman argument that Christ meant to build His Church on the person of St. Peter, there is not one single example in the New Testament of St. Peter acting with anything close to the authority claimed by modern Popes. St. Peter was like a chairman of the board. He had influence, but did not make final decisions. We see this in Acts 15. The Lord spoke to St. Peter, but St. Peter went to the Apostolic Council for ratification of his vision that liberated Gentile converts from following the Jewish law. St. Peter did not make a declaration ex cathedra like Pious IX did when the proclaimed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Fr. John

Fr. John

 

[Wandile]

If the Pope had the authority to deal with Nestorianism, why was it necessary to have the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 to deal with the controversy? History is clear. The ancient Popes lacked the authority to unilaterally deal with doctrinal controversies. Only an Ecumenical Council had that authority, not the Pope. In the ancient Church a council resolved every doctrinal controversy. None of them were resolved by the Bishop of Rome issuing a decree ex cathedra

Fr. John

Father this reasoning is flawed. You make it seem as if just because one has authority to do something, that that person HAS to use it.

With the rise of Protestantism the ecumenical Council of Trent was called even though the pope had the authority to issue a papal decree and leave it at that. I don’t know why they don’t do it that way but popes tend to go with ecumenical councils rather that issuing a decree, EVEN post-schism

You mention that only an ecumenical council had such authority but which ecumenical council ever teaches that only it has such authority?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly what title did Our Lord give St. Peter? He called him the rock, because He builds His Church on the Simon’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not on the person of St. Peter. Even if you accept the Roman argument that Christ meant to build His Church on the person of St. Peter, there is not one single example in the New Testament of St. Peter acting with anything close to the authority claimed by modern Popes. St. Peter was like a chairman of the board. He had influence, but did not make final decisions. We see this in Acts 15. The Lord spoke to St. Peter, but St. Peter went to the Apostolic Council for ratification of his vision that liberated Gentile converts from following the Jewish law. St. Peter did not make a declaration ex cathedra like Pious IX did when the proclaimed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Fr. John

Fr. John

You are again connecting today with the period of the Apostles.

First the preponderance of evidence from antiquity forward suggests your wrong. We already discussed St John Chrysostom and St Cyril along with St Cyprian all from the East. How do you reconcile this?

As to scripture, acting in authority, he preached at Pentecost and is mentioned many times more scripturally than anyone else denoting his importance. St Pauls submission to his authority in Rome is noted. This too adds weight to the above thinking of the Saints and the correct Biblical understanding moving forward through time.

Upon this Rock I will build my Church. So who are we to contradict the Son of God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

And then I even mentioned in fairness the Protestant scholars.

CONCLUSION ON “ROCK” OF MATTHEW 16:18

(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;

(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);

(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;

(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;

(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;

(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;

(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;

(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;

(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;

(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;

(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;

(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).

 

[GaryTaylor]

CONCLUSION ON “KEYS” OF MATTHEW 16:19

(A) The keys of the kingdom represent authoritative teaching, and Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now on earth as Christ’s chief teacher;

(B) The keeper of the keys, according to the background of Matthew 16:19, has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isaiah 22);

(C) The authority of the keys is likened to that of the teachers of the Law in Jesus’ day, and the correct interpretation of the Law given by Jesus is accessible to the early community (the Church) through the tradition of Peter;

(D) The authority of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19) are not different from the key of David (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7), since Jesus controls and is in possession of both;

(E) Therefore, the keys (or “key” singular) represent FULL authorization, FULL authority, PLENARY authority, SUPREME authority;



(F) The keys of the kingdom are NOT to be understood as merely entrance keys (or “opening the door of faith” to the Gentiles), but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household (cf. Isaiah 22), which in the New Covenant is Christ’s universal Church (cf. Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15);

(G) Peter, as holder of the keys, is not merely the “gatekeeper of heaven” or “doorkeeper” but is therefore the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church) on earth;

(H) Further, the power of the keys can represent baptismal or penitential discipline, excommunication, exclusion from the Eucharist, legislative powers or the power of governing the affairs of the Church;

(I) The language of “binding” and “loosing” is Rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching or a teaching function (or “Halakhic” pronouncements), denoting the authoritative declaration that an action is permitted or forbidden by the law of Moses, and in the Church the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and promise forgiveness to believers;

(J) The “binding” and “loosing” refers to the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the early community, which Jesus was establishing through His apostles in His Church) to declare a commandment or teaching binding or not binding, forbidden or allowed, and God in heaven will ratify, seal, or confirm that decision made on earth (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Back on point, "Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox "

 

[GaryTaylor]

Father as to the IC, how do we know what and will not be binding on the East in relation to dogma? Here we run into to as I stated in the Eastern Catholic area thread the main problem being the Easts persistent misunderstanding of Original Sin seen through Augustine with guilt. That should be removed from your links, blogs and wiki pedia its fiction. I admit we have a different emphasis, that’s all it is. The doctrine is consistent through history East and West on sin.

Purgatory is a non issue.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father this reasoning is flawed. You make it seem as if just because one has authority to do something, that that person HAS to use it.

I RESPOND: I disagree. If a person has authority to do something, there would be historical examples of him doing it and there would also be recognition by others that he had that authority. The ancient Popes did not have the authority to resolve issues by papal decree and there is no evidence from the practice of the Church that the consensus of the Fathers believed that the Bishop of Rome had such authority. However, there are plenty of examples of Bishops who did not hesitate to tell the Bishop of Rome that they disagreed with him as St. Paul did with St. Peter in Antioch.

With the rise of Protestantism the ecumenical Council of Trent was called even though the pope had the authority to issue a papal decree and leave it at that. I don’t know why they don’t do it that way but popes tend to go with ecumenical councils rather that issuing a decree, VEN post-schism.

I RESPOND: Trent was called because at that time even in the West doctrinal decisions were not made unilaterally by the Pope. Papal infallibility was only accepted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church at the 1st Vatican Council in 1870. Only after that did the Pope have the authority to unilaterally proclaim doctrine.

You mention that only an ecumenical council had such authority but which ecumenical council ever teaches that only it has such authority?

A more accurate question would be did any Ecumenical Council teach that it did not have such authority? Read the texts of the Councils. They all assume the authority to define the doctrine of the Church and pass canons to establish the administration of the Church. Thy did not have to claim universal authority, they exercised it. They even presumed that they had authority over the Bishop of Rome. They spoke decisively and with authority. They did not submit their decisions to the Pope for approval. When Pope St. Leo objected to the decisions of the Council of Ephesus of 449, he did not annul them by papal decree, he appealed to the Emperor and the other Patriarchs for a new council to reconsider the decisions of the Robber Council.

I have yet to receive an answer of how Roman Catholics justify their belief in papal supremacy since most of the papal claims are not based on the Scriptures or the Ecumenical Councils but on a forged document, the Donation of Constantine.

The citation of St. Irenaeus of Lyons at the bottom of your post is taken completely out of context. St. Irenaeus’ major argument that the Gnostics could be proven wrong because they teach doctrines that are contaray to the teachings of the Churches that are led by Bishops who can be shown to be successors to the Apostles. Since he was writing in what is now France, he naturally used the nearest Apostolic see which was Rome. St. Irenaeus had no hesitation to challenge Pope Victor when he claimed the authorty to excommunicate the Churches in what is now Turkey during the controversy over the date of Easter. You neglect to quote the section , immediately before the one that you cite, he wrote, “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches.we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [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.” In other words, he could have used the example of other Churches with Apostolic Succession, but chose Rome as his example because he was writing from the territory under Rome.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

CONCLUSION ON “KEYS” OF MATTHEW 16:19

(A) The keys of the kingdom represent authoritative teaching, and Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now on earth as Christ’s chief teacher;

(B) The keeper of the keys, according to the background of Matthew 16:19, has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isaiah 22);

(C) The authority of the keys is likened to that of the teachers of the Law in Jesus’ day, and the correct interpretation of the Law given by Jesus is accessible to the early community (the Church) through the tradition of Peter;

(D) The authority of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19) are not different from the key of David (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7), since Jesus controls and is in possession of both;

(E) Therefore, the keys (or “key” singular) represent FULL authorization, FULL authority, PLENARY authority, SUPREME authority;



(F) The keys of the kingdom are NOT to be understood as merely entrance keys (or “opening the door of faith” to the Gentiles), but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household (cf. Isaiah 22), which in the New Covenant is Christ’s universal Church (cf. Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15);

(G) Peter, as holder of the keys, is not merely the “gatekeeper of heaven” or “doorkeeper” but is therefore the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church) on earth;

(H) Further, the power of the keys can represent baptismal or penitential discipline, excommunication, exclusion from the Eucharist, legislative powers or the power of governing the affairs of the Church;

(I) The language of “binding” and “loosing” is Rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching or a teaching function (or “Halakhic” pronouncements), denoting the authoritative declaration that an action is permitted or forbidden by the law of Moses, and in the Church the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and promise forgiveness to believers;

(J) The “binding” and “loosing” refers to the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the early community, which Jesus was establishing through His apostles in His Church) to declare a commandment or teaching binding or not binding, forbidden or allowed, and God in heaven will ratify, seal, or confirm that decision made on earth (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

I agree!! I fail to understand why it is so hard to understand what was written. It seems very plain to me. What’s more, I can’t any way for it to be interpreted any other way. This primacy of Honor I keep hearing just seems to me saying what while Peter and his sucessors have only the honor but no authority and can not make any decision without the others agreeing and then Peter and his secessors just have to go along with it because Peter and his secessors only have the honor just as a figurehead would. It’s like someone saying you can be the boss but its only honorary and you have no power or authority and only the group has the authority to decide what is or what is not and you just have to go with it. at least thats how I’m beginning to understand it and I do not agree with that thinking hence I agree with you wholeheartily.