The Papacy and Greek Language

[Jon_Mallory]

In a recent thread, some Catholics defend the preeminence of the papacy using big Greek words I don’t know. Now, the Orthodox argue that Catholics grossly misinterpret these words to mean something they can’t possibly mean. So if anyone is knowledgable about the greek regarding Christ’s giving Peter the keys of the kingdom and other related passages concerning the papacy, please enlighten me about their meaning. Sufficed to say, I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church could produce brilliant theologians such as Benedict XVI and Cardinal John Henry Newman who at the same time failed Greek 101.

Oh, and please don’t harass the Orthodox and try to impose the papacy on them. Could we have a cordial discussion for once without slipping into sarcastic, biting comments. They make me cry.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I think we can agree that the bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor , is a servant of God , and has jurisdiction in the Latin / Roman Catholic Church , but does he have jurisdiction elsewhere, I’d have to say no , anyway this will be interesting, be considerate of others in the thread .

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I think we can agree that the bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor , is a servant of God , and has jurisdiction in the Latin / Roman Catholic Church , but does he have jurisdiction elsewhere, I’d have to say no , anyway this will be interesting, be considerate of others in the thread .

I hope so but having seen these types of threads for over a year now, I am a little cynical but not so cynical as to think decorum is impossible. There is still much I can learn so long as the zealots so long as people don’t get too enthusiastic.

 

[dmar198]

Would it bring this thread off-topic too far if I talked about early evidence for the pope’s universal jurisdiction in response to Starwarsfan2? I ask because I don’t have much to contribute to the original question re Greek, since I too don’t know it, but on the other hand I don’t think it would be right to ignore early evidence for universal papal jurisdiction now that Starwarsfan2 has brought it up and given his opinion on it.

Jon Mallory, do I have your permission to talk about jurisdiction without reference to the Greek language which you ask about in your OP? Or should we rest content with saying this: Starwarsfan2’s comments about jurisdiction are important, but they should be discussed in another thread.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Would it bring this thread off-topic too far if I talked about early evidence for the pope’s universal jurisdiction in response to Starwarsfan2? I ask because I don’t have much to contribute to the original question re Greek, since I too don’t know it, but on the other hand I don’t think it would be right to ignore early evidence for universal papal jurisdiction now that Starwarsfan2 has brought it up and given his opinion on it.

Jon Mallory, do I have your permission to talk about jurisdiction without reference to the Greek language which you ask about in your OP? Or should we rest content with saying this: Starwarsfan2’s comments about jurisdiction are important, but they should be discussed in another thread.

That should be the subject of another thread. The reason being that “early evidence for universal papal jurisdiction” usually consists in quoting the Church Fathers, which quickly opens up a can of worms. One has to be cautious when using the Fathers because they lived during a different historical/cultural context (obviously) and when people don’t realize/appreciate this, they use anachronisms to interpret what the Fathers are saying. It is dangerous to quote the Fathers without commentary. The discussion quickly devolves into “sola patristics”. We need serious scholars when dealing with the Fathers.

Let’s stick with the Greek. If that is too boring/complicated for people, I’ll create a thread concerning other evidence for or against the papacy.

Thank you.

 

[Wesrock]

I assume you are referring to the petra versus petros argument? I always saw the “well petra is a large stone and petros is a pebble” kind of silly. If you’re passing familiar with Greek, you’d be familiar with the ending of the word always changing with case or gender. Petra is feminine. Petros is masculine. You can’t give Peter a feminine name in Greek. “You will be called Petra!” just would not work for a man. It’d be like calling him “Peterina” or something. So use petra the second time? Because it was the proper word and case for a rock (a thing, an inanimate object).

Then there’s some who claim that Jesus was gesticulating while saying “You are Peter” points to Peter “And on THIS” points to self rock I will build my Church. But that just seems rather silly, especially as an assumption to make about a written document without clarification.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

Literally “And I to you say that you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my my assembly/church.” (There are some extra 'the’s in the Greek, as is common before many nouns in that language)

ταύτῃ has some emphasis as this, or 'this one," the emphasis would be clearly on something being pointed out (in the text) which could only be Peter.

As for the keys, I’m not aware of appeals to the Greek, but Jesus is clearly paraphrasing Isaiah 22:22, when Isaiah describes how he will give the symbolic keys of David’s household to a new chief of David’s household. The former chief will die (per Isaiah’s prophecy for his misdeeds) and Isaiah will pass it on to his successor, as this position of chief steward/prime minister was a permanent office in the kingdom of Judah with successive members.

I know the Orthodox later point out that binding and loosing (also from that same passage, but without mentioning the keys directly) was given to all Bishops, but we can’t deny that Peter was singled out, nor that he has obvious prominence in the Gospels and Acts and was clearly among the most influential, at the very least. Plus the ending of the gospel of John where Jesus has him thrice confess his love and instructs him in particular to feed his sheep.

I apologize for the informal nature of my post. This seems more a rebuttal of protestant objections to the papacy, not just Orthodox, but I’m not entirely sure what angle you are asking about, other than perhaps the part about binding and loosing, which I already mentioned.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I assume you are referring to the petra versus petros argument? I always saw the “well petra is a large stone and petros is a pebble” kind of silly. If you’re passing familiar with Greek, you’d be familiar with the ending of the word always changing with case or gender. Petra is feminine. Petros is masculine. You can’t give Peter a feminine name in Greek. “You will be called Petra!” just would not work for a man. It’d be like calling him “Peterina” or something. So use petra the second time? Because it was the proper word and case for a rock (a thing, an inanimate object).

Then there’s some who claim that Jesus was gesticulating while saying “You are Peter” points to Peter “And on THIS” points to self rock I will build my Church. But that just seems rather silly, especially as an assumption to make about a written document without clarification.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

Literally “And I to you say that you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my my assembly/church.” (There are some extra 'the’s in the Greek, as is common before many nouns in that language)

ταύτῃ has some emphasis as this, or 'this one," the emphasis would be clearly on something being pointed out (in the text) which could only be Peter.

As for the keys, I’m not aware of appeals to the Greek, but Jesus is clearly paraphrasing Isaiah 22:22, when Isaiah describes how he will give the symbolic keys of David’s household to a new chief of David’s household. The former chief will die (per Isaiah’s prophecy for his misdeeds) and Isaiah will pass it on to his successor, as this position of chief steward/prime minister was a permanent office in the kingdom of Judah with successive members.

I know the Orthodox later point out that binding and loosing (also from that same passage, but without mentioning the keys directly) was given to all Bishops, but we can’t deny that Peter was singled out, nor that he has obvious prominence in the Gospels and Acts and was clearly among the most influential, at the very least. Plus the ending of the gospel of John where Jesus has him thrice confess his love and instructs him in particular to feed his sheep.

I apologize for the informal nature of my post. This seems more a rebuttal of protestant objections to the papacy, not just Orthodox, but I’m not entirely sure what angle you are asking about, other than perhaps the part about binding and loosing, which I already mentioned.

Thank you!

 

[Wesrock]

I suppose I should bring up the second mention of binding and loosing from Matthew 18:18. Jesus is addressing his disciples now I’m group instruction:

18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

The binding and the loosing is again a reference back to Isaiah 22. It’s a matter of authority in the kingdom. But the keys themselves are not directly mentioned, as they were with Peter, and I don’t think it’s proper to ignore how Peter was singled out. The Davidic kingdom had a number of stewards, but there was one who was head among them and head of the entire household and wielded the king’s authority (and directly referenced in Isaiah 22:22. Bishops certainly have authority, both individually within their own jurisdiction and as a group. The Church says this. But Peter’s office within the kingdom is above that. Peter was given a new name at the time this authority was first granted to him. (And Kephas, his Aramaic name, DEFINITELY does not have the petros/a case ending differences that is pointed out in the Greek.)

Again, apologies for the informal nature of this post. All of the Orthodox on these boards I’ve met are very well spoken, so I expect them to run circles around my posts.

By the way, what were the big Greek words the Catholics were throwing around? Or at least, what were they quoting? I’m curious about whether I even addressed what prompted this topic.

 

[Wesrock]

Sorry for posting again. I tried to edit my last post, but took too long.

One last thing going back to my first post. Speaking of building an assembly on a rock (assembly often being used for the people of Israel in the Old Testament) would probably have brought to mind the giant rock of the Temple Mount that the Temple was built on for a first century Jew (and we know that the Temple is Jesus himself).

Furthermore, I recall that the location of Peter declaring Jesus to be the son of the living God, Caesarea Philippi, where there is a temple to the emperor, who also claimed to be the son of God, and where that temple is seated on a giant rock, too, is also very important. The site, Peter’s declaration, and Jesus’ proclamation are not coincidental, but in fact quite a bold statement, and a very obtuse message about the cult of the emperor. This article discusses it… At least a little bit.

defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html

I haven’t proofed the whole website, and I only found this after a quick Google search, but this one article seems alright, at least.

Okay. I’m signing off for now!

 

[John_Martin]

There are a couple of things you can’t see in the “you are Rock and on this Rock” or the “You are Peter and on this Peter” text -

Likely Jesus spoke this in Aramaic, since “Peter” is also called the Aramaic name “Cephas” in the NT, also meaning Rock. Greek speakers properly dealt with Jesus’ words to Simon, using “Peter” as his name, but Latin and English and probably all other post NT translations have kept “Peter”, when we should have been calling him by our own languages’ words for Cephas. In English we should be calling him “Rock” (thus, my home Parish should be “St. Rock’s Church”, and we should know that the Pope is sitting on the “Chair of Rock”.

A second thing, we forget the other disciples looking on at Jesus speaking to Peter. They all knew the “keys of the Kingdom” meaning. They all knew Jesus was the Messiah, the King from the line of David, the promised Messiah. And seeing this pronounced as the appointment to Peter, they all knew it was an Royal and Official Appointment of authority from their King. And this appointment made them all take a step back when looking at Peter. He had authority to order them about just as Jesus had been doing, and with the approval of Jesus that they should obey Peter. James and John (and their mother) wanted similar appointments by their King - to sit at his right and his left in his Kingdom. Jesus does appoint individuals to special roles, and so will his Father, who will appoint the ones at his right and left.

We are citizens of a Kingdom, a special People in the world with a King. And he has appointed governors to establish his ordering of his People.

 

[myway]

Again, apologies for the informal nature of this post. All of the Orthodox on these boards I’ve met are very well spoken, so I expect them to run circles around my posts.

By the way, what were the big Greek words the Catholics were throwing around? Or at least, what were they quoting? I’m curious about whether I even addressed what prompted this topic.

I’m not sure what Greek words Catholics discussed in the other post but I have a lot of good points in my post. Also I don’t know what the Orthodox believe about the bible in Greek.

Only according to Koines Greek does Petros mean small pebble. Koines Greek is not the same Greek in the oldest Greek Bible called the Septuagint. Petros appears 162 times in the New Testament.

When the New Testament was written in Greek Petra became Petros. Petra is in the New Testament 16 times. They changed the name because Petra was feminine.To the Early Christians Peter in Matthew 16:18 is the bedrock on which the Catholic Church was found on. Peter was the Pope to the Early Christians. God was still the leader of the Catholic Church and Peter was his spokesperson.

Lithios means stone in the New Testament. It can mean small stones that fit in your hand (Mt 7:9; Lk 22:41; John 8:59) and also large rocks the size of boulders (Mt 28:2; 9:42). Stone-cut bricks was also called lithios as in (Mk 13:1-2). Protestants would never call Jesus a small stone. Just as Catholics would never call Peter or Jesus a small stone.

 

[myway]

I suppose I should bring up the second mention of binding and loosing from Matthew 18:18. Jesus is addressing his disciples now I’m group instruction:

18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

The binding and the loosing is again a reference back to Isaiah 22. It’s a matter of authority in the kingdom. But the keys themselves are not directly mentioned, as they were with Peter, and I don’t think it’s proper to ignore how Peter was singled out. The Davidic kingdom had a number of stewards, but there was one who was head among them and head of the entire household and wielded the king’s authority (and directly referenced in Isaiah 22:22. Bishops certainly have authority, both individually within their own jurisdiction and as a group. The Church says this. But Peter’s office within the kingdom is above that. Peter was given a new name at the time this authority was first granted to him. (And Kephas, his Aramaic name, DEFINITELY does not have the petros/a case ending differences that is pointed out in the Greek.)

Again, apologies for the informal nature of this post. All of the Orthodox on these boards I’ve met are very well spoken, so I expect them to run circles around my posts.

By the way, what were the big Greek words the Catholics were throwing around? Or at least, what were they quoting? I’m curious about whether I even addressed what prompted this topic.

I’m not sure what Greek words Catholics discussed in the other post but I have a lot of good points in my post. Also I don’t know what the Orthodox believe about the bible in Greek.

Only according to Koines Greek does Petros mean small pebble. Koines Greek is not the same Greek in the oldest Greek Bible called the Septuagint. Petros appears 162 times in the New Testament.

When the New Testament was written in Greek Petra became Petros. Petra is in the New Testament 16 times. They changed the name because Petra was feminine.To the Early Christians Peter in Matthew 16:18 is the bedrock on which the Catholic Church was found on. Peter was the Pope to the Early Christians. God was still the leader of the Catholic Church and Peter was his spokesperson.

Lithios means stone in the New Testament. It can mean small stones that fit in your hand (Mt 7:9; Lk 22:41; John 8:59) and also large rocks the size of boulders (Mt 28:2; 9:42). Stone-Cut bricks was also called lithios as in (Mk 13:1-2). Protestants would never call Jesus a small stone. Just as Catholics would never call Peter or Jesus a small stone.

 

[Vico]

In a recent thread, some Catholics defend the preeminence of the papacy using big Greek words I don’t know. Now, the Orthodox argue that Catholics grossly misinterpret these words to mean something they can’t possibly mean. So if anyone is knowledgable about the greek regarding Christ’s giving Peter the keys of the kingdom and other related passages concerning the papacy, please enlighten me about their meaning. Sufficed to say, I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church could produce brilliant theologians such as Benedict XVI and Cardinal John Henry Newman who at the same time failed Greek 101.

Oh, and please don’t harass the Orthodox and try to impose the papacy on them. Could we have a cordial discussion for once without slipping into sarcastic, biting comments. They make me cry.

It seems clear to me that Jesus gave Simon bar Jona a new name, a feminine noun, Kepha.

 

[Rohzek]

Well, this wasn’t the exact subject that the issue about Greek was discussed in the thread Mallory mentions. It pertained to a passage of Luke. And as for what the Greek means in the passage of Matthew, well I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the Greek. I only know the Latin, which makes it pretty clear to me. I’d post quotes from various Latin sources (saints, monks, etc.) on their understanding of the Rock and the Keys in the original Latin texts, but as much as I would like to due to the lack of an opposing view in this thread, I cannot. This thread is supposed to be about the Greek text itself and its reception by Greek-speaking Christians.

As for the thread that sparked this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=997965&page=5

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Well, this wasn’t the exact subject that the issue about Greek was discussed in the thread Mallory mentions. It pertained to a passage of Luke. And as for what the Greek means in the passage of Matthew, well I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the Greek. I only know the Latin, which makes it pretty clear to me. I’d post quotes from various Latin sources (saints, monks, etc.) on their understanding of the Rock and the Keys in the original Latin texts, but as much as I would like to due to the lack of an opposing view in this thread, I cannot. This thread is supposed to be about the Greek text itself and its reception by Greek-speaking Christians.

As for the thread that sparked this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=997965&page=5

Please feel free to share the Latin sources. Don’t let us Catholics get too comfortable.

 

[Wesrock]

Well, this wasn’t the exact subject that the issue about Greek was discussed in the thread Mallory mentions. It pertained to a passage of Luke. And as for what the Greek means in the passage of Matthew, well I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the Greek. I only know the Latin, which makes it pretty clear to me. I’d post quotes from various Latin sources (saints, monks, etc.) on their understanding of the Rock and the Keys in the original Latin texts, but as much as I would like to due to the lack of an opposing view in this thread, I cannot. This thread is supposed to be about the Greek text itself and its reception by Greek-speaking Christians.

As for the thread that sparked this one: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=997965&page=5

Thank you for linking the topic. I will dig through it. Now I want to delete my original posts as irrelevant and so the rest of the thread doesn’t focus on what I said about Matthew (though it would probably come up again anyway).

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Thank you for linking the topic. I will dig through it. Now I want to delete my original posts as irrelevant and so the rest of the thread doesn’t focus on what I said about Matthew (though it would probably come up again anyway).

I intentionally expanded the scope of this thread to other scriptures supporting the papacy because some folk in the last thread were pushing it even though it was off-topic. Don’t delete your comments. They are valuable. We don’t need to just narrow our focus on the passage of Luke Rohzek mentioned although that is fair game as well.

 

[Rohzek]

Please feel free to share the Latin sources. Don’t let us Catholics get too comfortable.

With glee

Thank you for linking the topic. I will dig through it. Now I want to delete my original posts as irrelevant and so the rest of the thread doesn’t focus on what I said about Matthew (though it would probably come up again anyway).

I think you raised an interesting issue with Matthew. Personally, I suspect the Rock issue is something that arose during the Protestant Reformation. Medieval arguments in favor of papal supremacy tended to be rooted in the Keys-aspect, not the rock one. And this is what I wanted to at least help shed some light on.

 

[Rohzek]

Part 1 of Many

Note: Please look at the Vulgate text and translation quote since I did not translate all biblical passages in my translations. Also note that these come from the Patrologia Latina (PL). And finally note that my scripture quotes are italicized in both Latin and in English, although they are not always demarcated by passage citations, so read closely.

It’s pretty common at least in simple modern-day Catholic apologetics to identify the rock in Matthew 16:18-19 as pertaining to Peter’s specialty, and that it somehow consecrates Papal supremacy. Historically speaking, I don’t think this was ever understood in such a way:

*et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus
et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam
et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam

et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum
et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis
et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis*

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter;
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

-Matthew 16:18-19 Latin Vulgate

Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Metaphorice ei dicitur: Super hanc petram, id est, Salvatorem, [Col.0079A] quem confessus es, aedificatur Ecclesia, qui fideli confessori sui nominis participium donavit.

Metaphorically it is said: Upon this rock, that is, the Savior, which you have confessed, the Church shall be built, who had given a participation of his name to the sincere confessor [Peter].

*Et quodcunque ligaveris, etc. *Haec potestas sine dubio cunctis datur Apostolis, quibus ab eo post resurrectionem dicitur generaliter: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, etc. (Joan. XX).

This power is without a doubt given to those apostles, to whom by Him it is generally said after the resurrection: Receive the Holy Spirit, etc. (John 20).

• Bede’s IN MATTHAEI EVANGELIUM EXPOSITIO PL 92: 0078D - 0079A

Quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Sicut ipse lumen apostolis donavit, ut lumen mundi appellarentur, caeteraque ex Domino sortiti sunt vocabula: ita et Simoni, qui credebat in petram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen. [Col.0117D] At secundum metaphoram petrae, recte dicitur ei: Aedificabo Ecclesiam meam super te.

Just as he himself gave the light to the apostles, so that the light of the world would be addressed, and the rest are chosen names by the Lord: and thus to Simon, who believed in Christ the Rock, it is imparted the name of Peter. But following the metaphor of the rock, rightly it is said to him: I will build my Church upon you.

• Jerome’s COMMENTARIORUM IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI AD EUSEBIUM LIBRI QUATUOR PL 20: 0117C - 0117D

 

[Rohzek]

Part 2 of Many

Non enim, ut quidam male putant, Petrus fundamentum totius Ecclesiae est: Quia fundamentum nemo aliud potest ponere, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus (I Cor. III, 11). Licet super eodem fundamento primus, ac si caput Petrus recte positus credatur, tamen in ea petra, de qua nomen sibi ex dono traxit, et super eam tota construitur et constabilitur illa coelestis Jerusalem, id est, supra Christum, ut firma permaneat in sempiternum.

It is not in fact so that someone badly reckons that Peter is the entire foundation of the Church. For another foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). It is allowed upon the same foundation that the first, as if the head Peter rightly believed to have been fixed, but in it, the rock, from which itself the name derives by gift, and upon the entire rock that the heavenly Jerusalem is built and is established, that is upon Christ, so that it may be permanently strong and everlasting.

Tu es, inquit, Simon Joannis, tu vocaberis Cephas, quod interpretatur Petrus (Joan. I, 42). Et non dixit, tu vocaberis Petrus, quo jam vocatus erat nomine, sed ait signanter: Tu es Petrus, [Col.0560D] et super hanc petram, a qua petra factus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Non quod jam, ut dixi, tam firmus esset, sed quod futurum erat ut fieret a Christo, Qui vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt (Rom. IV, 17). Et per Spiritum sanctum ita firmaretur: Ut neque mors, neque vita, neque instantia, neque futura, neque ulla creatura posset eum separare a charitate quae est in Christo (Rom. VIII, 38, 39).

And he did not say, “You will be called Peter,” by which name he was called, but distinctly he says: You are Peter, and upon this rock, from which rock you are made, I will build my Church. Not that now, so that it is said, so much that he was strong, but that he will be made in the future from Christ, He who calls those who are not, as if they are those. (Romans 4:17) And through the Holy Spirit he would thus be strengthened: So that neither death, nor life, nor present things, nor future things, nor any created thing is able to separate him from love, which is in Christ (Romans 8:38-39).

Petrus autem talem ac tantam expressit de corde confessionem, ut ejus confessio sit omnium apostolorum. Et sicut simul omnes interrogantur, ita in eo omnium est responsio una, supra quam fundatur Ecclesia, et contra quam portae inferorum non praevalebunt.

However Peter expressed such and such from the heart of confession, so that his confession shall be [the confession] of every apostle. And just as at once all are asked, thus in him [Peter] is the one response of everyone, upon which [response/faith (feminine)] the Church is founded, and against which [response/faith] the gates of hell will not prevail.

Et quodcunque ligaveris supra terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcunque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis. Quaeso unusquisque circumstantiam lectionis hujus diligenter intendat, maxime tamen episcopi, quibus videtur cum Petro et cum omnibus apostolis haec potestas specialius a Domino attributa, licet et omni Ecclesiae eadem sit concessa…

I look at every circumstance of its reading diligently which he extends, but maximally to the bishops, to whom are seen with Peter and with all of the apostles to have been attributed this special power by the Lord, and granted that in the same way everyone of the Church is given…

Paschasius Radbertus’ EXPOSITIO IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI PL 120: 0560B; 0560C - 0560D; 0561A; 0563A

Et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Super hanc firmitatem fidei quam confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et super me aedificabo te cum omni Ecclesia mea.

Upon this strength of faith that you have confessed, I will build my Church, and upon me I will build you with all my Church.

Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum. Claves regni coelorum scientia discernendi, potentiaque qua dignos recipere in regnum, indignos excludere debeat intelligitur. Et quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcunque solveris super terram erit solutum et in coelis. Hoc tam Petro quam omnibus apostolis et successoribus [Col.1397B] eorum qui in Ecclesia eumdem locum tenent recte credimus concessum, quia ipse post passionem apparens eis, dixit: Accipite Spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis; et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt…

The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are for discerning knowledge, and the power which receives the worthy into the Kingdom, and excludes the unworthy ought to be understood. And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. This [applies] as much to Peter as to the all of the apostles and their successors, who hold the same office rightly we lend permission, because he himself appears to them after the passion, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit; every sin that you forgive are forgiven; and every sin that you retain are retained…

Dungal of Bobbio’s MONACHI EXPOSITIO IN MATTHAEUM EVANGELISTAM PL 106: 1396D; 1397A - 1397B