What actually were the keys given to Peter?

[Pons]

Bump…

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, **forty-four **thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27.

 

[PhilVaz]

Daniel << Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut. >>

A little misleading, what this means is that some of the Fathers thought it was:

Peter…or
Peter and Peter’s faith
Peter and Peter’s confession
Peter and Christ (e.g. later St. Augustine)
Peter and the apostles or disciples as a whole (e.g. Origen)

Peter was never excluded as being the Rock by any of the Fathers. As for the east and St. Peter see St. John Chrysostom on St. Peter. He falls in the Peter AND Peter’s faith/confession category.

The “Launoy” study is likewise dealt with by B.C. Butler in his reply to George Salmon, The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged "Salmon" (see especially chapters 8 and 9). I’ll finish typing it all in when I can.

Basically, Launoy “introduced various medieval and Renaissance writers to swell the number of witnesses.” Fr. Joseph Crehan in a rebuttal article (“Peter the Dispenser” in Vom Wort des Lebens, Munster 1951), states that “among the Fathers strictly so-called and writers prior to 700” the statistics of passages are as follows:

Peter as the Rock: 16
apostolic college: 6
Peter’s faith: 17
Christ as Rock: 4

Fr. Crehan notes that some individual Fathers are inconsistent with themselves and that in Launoy’s study “Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret appear each in three of the lists to support opposed views of the text.”

As for modern Protestant scholarship (evangelical or otherwise), the percentage is more like 95% that Peter is indeed the Rock of Matthew 16. See the following on the “rock” and “keys” of Matthew 16 which combines the views of various Protestant scholars.

St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

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).

These conclusions taken mainly from modern Protestant scholarship on the text.

Phil P