What's your Church's teaching on Matthew 16:18 and why?

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly and once we get past all the authority, supreme state of thinking we could put this in perspective more to the tune of Pope Francis today.

Luke…28"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; 29and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."…

Isn’t this how the primacy works in reality and on the Faith and person.

 

[josie_L]

Here’s the thing there are many aspects mardukm is right about, for example the “indwelling” of the Holy Sprit at Pentecost, this is the Church life, so too the Apsotles are sent. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit enables the Church to Teach, to Sanctify, and to Rule He’s also right that these are indeed Gods Apostles who can teach, forgive and all the same as Peter. He’s right Jesus Christ founded the Church.

That’s said Christ gave a unique power in His Church to Saint Peter by making him the head of the Apostles, and the head teacher and authority of the entire Church.

Yes, Christ does confer a unique power to Peter (that is why we said that the power of the keys is given in a particular way to Peter), i.e., the keys in Matthew 16:18 allude to the fact that Peter is the prime minister/steward (head of the Church and all that it entails). From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church. For a consideration of the text in its dogmatic bearing, see POPE; PRIMACY.

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

The Power of the Keys was promised to Saint Peter and was actually conferred on him. And on his person and most important his faith, for the Church is built on both.

Yes, in Matthew 16:18 the keys were given to Peter and Peter alone because Matthew was trying to tell his audience that he was the prime minister (primacy), because he would be the “keybearer”. However, certain aspects of the keys also signify loosing and binding, which the other apostles received in Matthew 18 (so they too share in the power of keys but that power is not equal to Peter’s, i.e., it does not jeopardize his primacy). Here again I will quote from the same article:

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).

newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

No one is denying that the Peter has a special/unique role or that he is head of the Church or that his authority is greater than that of the other apostles (jurisdiction), however, there are aspects of the keys which also include loosing and binding. . . .etc. that the apostle were given in Matthew 18. They are bishops (vicars of Christ) in their own right, so they “hold” the power of the keys, but not in the same way that Peter does.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sola Ke-pha?

:takeoff:

 

[josie_L]

Sola Ke-pha?

:takeoff:

I wish I was doing this right now: :tanning:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, Christ does confer a unique power to Peter (that is why we said that the power of the keys is given in a particular way to Peter), i.e., the keys in Matthew 16:18 allude to the fact that Peter is the prime minister/steward (head of the Church and all that it entails). From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Yes, in Matthew 16:18 the keys were given to Peter and Peter alone because Matthew was trying to tell his audience that he was the prime minister (but there were other minister in that kingdom), because he would be the “keybearer”. However, the keys also signify loosing and binding, which the other apostles received in Matthew 18. Here again I will quote from the same article:

No one is denying that the Peter has a special/unique role or that he is head of the Church or that his authority is greater than that of the other apostles (jurisdiction), however, there are aspects of the keys which also include loosing and binding. . . .etc. that the apostle were given in Matthew 18. They are bishops (vicars of Christ) in their own right, so they “hold” the power of the keys, but not in the same way that Peter does.

I agree with everything. “It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded”

Refers back to the Fathers, Augustine, St, John Chrysostom and so forth. Here’s the thing, the Keys above are conferred to Peter and this is explained above with the magisterium and it still comes to the question asked above, how are the Keys deposited with the Church? Peters Faith and person is a consistency. and doesn’t it still come back to who is in the Church with Peters Faith thus communion thus the supernatural grace of the redemption.

Needless to say this has been debated a very long time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The keys are mentioned again in Revelation,

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Luke…28"You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; 29and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."…

Bible study.

 

[josie_L]

I agree with everything. “It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded”

Refers back to the Fathers, Augustine, St, John Chrysostom and so forth. Here’s the thing, the Keys above are conferred to Peter and this is explained above with the magisterium and it still comes to the question asked above, how are the Keys deposited with the Church? Peters Faith and person is a consistency. and doesn’t it still come back to who is in the Church with Peters Faith thus communion thus the supernatural grace of the redemption.

Needless to say this has been debated a very long time.

:compcoff: Do I look tired?

 

[josie_L]

(according to the Catechism) that the office of binding and losing (which is what the keys are)

I disagree and can’t imagine how you conclude this.

No, the keys represent more than just loosing and binding.

 

[GaryTaylor]

:compcoff: Do I look tired?

Without a doubt.

 

[josie_L]

Mardukum you said RE: the Pope:

This is the model Jesus gave the Church. Anything less leads to doctrinal disarray and other issues.

I could say the same thing for your outlook mardukum.

Democracy is not the way Jesus designed His Church mardukum.

• Mardukum thesis = Democracy (and/or doctrinal disarray or at least doctrinal impasse) = Sola Democratia (Democracy alone)

The Church has already dealt with the heresy of Conciliarism, mardukum (a type of primacy of Church democracy). Your thesis leads you to the heresy of Conciliarism (also called Gallicanism).

The Church uses the model that Christ put forth from Apostolic times.

• Teaching Office of the Church = Magisterium = POPE and Bishops in union with him (CCC 100).

Nobody is denying the Keys are deposited with the Church.

ROMAN CATECHISM Since this power, therefore, cannot be of human origin, divine faith can alone enable us to understand that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are deposited with the Church . . .

The question is HOW are the Keys deposited with the Church? That is the question. And I am saying directly from Jesus Christ through St. Peter.

You also said:

Here is what Vatican II really teaches (yes the Bishops DO have authority on their own . . . . BUT . . . . if they deviate from the holder of the Keys, they can be subject to authoritative correction from the holder of the Keys).

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum Section 10) But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, . . . .
. . . . . It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

• The teaching authority of the Church comes via the Magisterium

The Magisterium = “The Pope . . . .and the Bishops in union with him”.

Vatican II in a sense says some (not all of course) of the the same things about the authority issue concerning the sensus fidei (the faithful people at large).

And modernist dissenters will try to use the exact same line of argumentation that you are using here with the sensus fidei (instead of the bishops).

They re-define the “faithful” from obedient Catholics and morph the “faithful” into a Gallup Poll and a few “wah lahs and a little pixie dust”, and behold, the Churches teachings on the contraception issue are no longer the same (according to these guys).

They will say the Pope (and/or the Bishops) must be in union with the people at large for them to teach authoritatively. I have a radio broadcast audio of a modernist trying to make this exact argument of yours mardukum (only instead of “bishops” he is using “the people”).

You would disagree with this. I would disagree with this. But their line of reasoning is the same as yours is mardukum. And they too will try to hijack Vatican II (and now CCC 785), to support their argument too (just like you did).

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, Section 12) 12. The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful”[8] they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.

They selectively ignore other teachings like the next sentence(s) though. . . .

VATICAN II (Lumen Gentium, Section 12) By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.

Again, you would disagree with them. I would disagree with them. But their line of reasoning is the same as yours is mardukum. And they too will try to manipulate Vatican II, to support their argument. And I am saying Vatican II, doesn’t help their point, and it doesn’t help your point either.

The Church uses St. Peter as Key holder because that is the Apostolic model mardukum.

If it is NOT the Apostolic model, please show me in Scripture where someone else gets the Keys of the Kingdom. I know you cannot do it (and you know this too). Why? Because St. Peter getting the Keys is the Apostolic model.

It must be a sign from God, i.e., your last post to Marduk is 133! God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

As I was saying I do believe all have the Keys. I also believe a very good argument could be made for only Peter.

No argument can be made that only Peter had the keys. Possessing the keys means having the power to govern, having the power to sanctify, and having the power to teach. That is plain from the old CE and the Catechism.

Does Jesus claim that He intended ONLY Peter to govern, ONLY Peter to sanctify, and ONLY Peter to teach? If not, how can it be claimed that only Peter possesses the keys, or that Jesus intended for ONLY Peter to have the keys? As sister Josie has ably pointed out, that Jesus said he would give Peter the keys signifies his primacy, not that he would be the ONLY one who would have the keys. He was expected by Christ to share those keys with his fellow Apostles (i.e., St. Peter had no choice in the matter - it was Christ’s will), as plainly asserted by Pope St. Leo “Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that He has given to others what He has not refused to bestow on them.”

I hope you agree that personal interpretation cannot be taken as a standard. Though you personally cannot find the word “keys” in the Matthew 18 passage, the Church Fathers, knowing and safeguarding the UNwritten Tradition of the Church, did see in those passages that the keys were also given to the other Apostles (in sister Josie and my discussion with brother Miles in the Divine Institution thread, a quote was given from St, Cyprian indicating exactly this). This is the unwritten Tradition preserved faithfully by the Catholic Church when at Lateran IV, she taught that the bishops are given the keys. Further, the Catechism states, immediately after stating that the keys would be given to St. Peter, that the office of binding of losing given to St. Peter would also be given to the Apostles. Elsewhere, the Catechism explains that the power of binding and losing is not only the power to forgive, but also the power to accept or exclude someone from the Church - this designates the whole gamut of the Church’s disciplinary authority, or her government.

So, as originally stated, High Petrine advocates can agree that Jesus gave Peter the keys in a PRINCIPAL manner, but we cannot agree with Absolutist Petrine advocates that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to have the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thanks so much sister Josie. You are a great witness for the Catholic Faith and a true advocate for unity, which is the very purpose of the papacy. You a true defender of the papacy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You see the interaction with Revelation/Matthew how the keys again relate to Isaiah?

"He that hath the key of David. Observe that none of these titles come from the opening vision in Revelation 1, although by no means all the material there found (Revelation 1:13-16) has been already used. The source of the present appellation is obviously Isaiah 22:20-22; but it is worth noting that Isaiah 22:20 has much that is parallel to the unused material in Revelation 1:18; so that the opening vision would seem to direct us, as this passage certainly does, to Eliakim as a type of Christ. As Trench observes, Isaiah foretells the promotion of Eliakim “with an emphasis and fulness” which would surprise us if we did not see in it not merely the description of “a revolution in the royal palace” of Judah, but “the type of something immeasurably greater.” Shebna, whose name shows him to have been a foreigner, had misused his dignity and power as steward or controller of the royal house - an office analogous to that held by Joseph under Pharaoh and by our prime minister. For this he was degraded to the inferior office of royal scribe or secretary (Isaiah 36:3; Isaiah 37:2), while Eliakim was made “mayor of the palace” in his room. The παστοφόριον of the LXX. and praepositus templi of the Vulgate would lead us to suppose that Eliakim’s office was sacerdotal; but this is certainly a mistake. Luther’s Hofmeister is much nearer the mark.

A key would not be an appropriate symbol of a priestly office. In possessing “the key of the house of David,” Eliakim had control over the house of David.

And it may also design his authority in his house and church, in fixing the ordinances of it, in bestowing gifts on men, and in dispensing the blessings of grace and goodness; this may have some regard to the pure discipline of this church, as well as to its light and knowledge in the doctrines of the Gospel. The Targum on Isaiah 22:22 interprets the key of the house of David, of “the dominion” or “government of the house of David”,

They belong to Christ, but have been committed to his Church, (Conferred to Peter/Church=Magesterium) but not unreservedly.

Therefore in this passage Christ claims the control of that of which the house of David was a type. He is Regent in the kingdom of God.

He that openeth, and none shall shut, and shutteth, and none openeth.

He(Christ) opens the door of the Gospel, and gives an opportunity to preach it, and liberty of mind and expression to his ministers, and a door of utterance to them, and of entrance for it into the hearts of men, which none can shut, or hinder: he opens the door of the church, which is himself, and lets in his sheep into the sheepfold, into a Gospel church state, and the ordinances of it; and he opens the door of heaven by his blood and righteousness, and gives his people liberty and boldness to enter into the holiest of all, and brings many sons to glory in spite of all the opposition of men and devils: on the other hand, when he pleases, he shuts up the Scriptures, and the eyes of men from seeing what is in them; he shuts up the door of the Gospel, and forbids the preaching of it in this and that place; and the door of heaven will be shut by him at the last day, when all called to the marriage of the Lamb are entered, and there will be no opening. This shows the sovereignty, power, and authority of Christ, and which he will exercise in this church state,

He still retains the highest administration in his own hands" (Trench): and if the Church errs in binding or loosing, he cancels the judgment. The Church may open where Christ will shut, and shut where Christ will open. He alone openeth so that none shall strut, and shutteth so that none can open." Pulpit commentary

Revelation 1:18

John’s Vision on Patmos
7When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. 19"Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.….

“I am the First and the Last, and the Living One; and I became dead, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” “Became” or “came to be” (ἐγενόμην), as in vers. 9 and 10, indicates an exceptional condition. The “Amen” has been improperly inserted after “forevermore” (see on “forever and ever,” in ver. 6) from liturgical usage. Most English versions omit it.

The keys, as so often, are the sign of authority

(Revelation 3:7; Revelation 9:1; Revelation 20:1; Matthew 16:19). Christ, as the absolutely Living One, who “has life in himself” and is the Source of life in others, has control, not merely over the passage from this world to the other, but over the other world itself. He can recall departed souls from their resting place. The error of rendering Αιδης “hell” has often been pointed out; it is not a place of punishment, but the temporary home of the departed, who are awaiting the day of judgment. “Death,” in all the best manuscripts and versions precedes “Hades;” and this is the logical order. Pulpit

Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him. 2He opened the bottomless pit, and smoke went up out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by the smoke of the pit.…

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dear brother Gary,

No argument can be made that only Peter had the keys. Possessing the keys means having the power to govern, having the power to sanctify, and having the power to teach. That is plain from the old CE and the Catechism.

Does Jesus claim that He intended ONLY Peter to govern, ONLY Peter to sanctify, and ONLY Peter to teach? If not, how can it be claimed that only Peter possesses the keys, or that Jesus intended for ONLY Peter to have the keys? As sister Josie has ably pointed out, that Jesus said he would give Peter the keys signifies his primacy, not that he would be the ONLY one who would have the keys. He was expected by Christ to share those keys with his fellow Apostles (i.e., St. Peter had no choice in the matter - it was Christ’s will), as plainly asserted by Pope St. Leo “Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that He has given to others what He has not refused to bestow on them.”

I hope you agree that personal interpretation cannot be taken as a standard. Though you personally cannot find the word “keys” in the Matthew 18 passage, the Church Fathers, knowing and safeguarding the UNwritten Tradition of the Church, did see in those passages that the keys were also given to the other Apostles (in sister Josie and my discussion with brother Miles in the Divine Institution thread, a quote was given from St, Cyprian indicating exactly this). This is the unwritten Tradition preserved faithfully by the Catholic Church when at Lateran IV, she taught that the bishops are given the keys. Further, the Catechism states, immediately after stating that the keys would be given to St. Peter, that the office of binding of losing given to St. Peter would also be given to the Apostles. Elsewhere, the Catechism explains that the power of binding and losing is not only the power to forgive, but also the power to accept or exclude someone from the Church - this designates the whole gamut of the Church’s disciplinary authority, or her government.

So, as originally stated, High Petrine advocates can agree that Jesus gave Peter the keys in a PRINCIPAL manner, but we cannot agree with Absolutist Petrine advocates that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to have the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thanks so much sister Josie. You are a great witness for the Catholic Faith and a true advocate for unity, which is the very purpose of the papacy. You a true defender of the papacy.

I hear you but it comes back to the model which is right above. This is indeed the same issue Augustine and St John wrestled with along with Cyprian Origen and a host of others.

If everyone has the keys and authority to bind and lose, than like Church’s can be set up not in communion, which as we hear here regular “you have a different theology” . This cannot be possible for God would be binding and loosing differently for all. That’s impossible.

This is why the mindset of the early church and those above was unity. They could not separate the Church/keys/binding and loosing. That’s impossible. There are not similar theologies. which arrive at different beliefs which become differently defined and understood.

“Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that He has given to others what He has not refused to bestow on them.”

And Leo spoke of Church Unity for there could not be through Peter that which was given and then taken in a contrary direction.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This wasn’t a battle between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Church’s in the early church. This is a dispute between “Catholic Church Fathers” in communion over how to understand a single word in Matthew 16:18. And the crux of the matter is person/faith.

Which in reading carefully is not an issue, and certainly not today. Even protestant biblical scholars agree person/faith.

As to 4-Lateran again you miss the point with unity.

'There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation." Canon 1 and the one your quoting.(why would you quote what you admit you do not believe is an ecumenical council?) That makes NO SENSE. In other words you not only want me to believe what you don’t. You want me to sola scripture read what you believe, but then I should ignore what you do not want to hear? Frankly I’m surprised you would suggest this.

There is no Church/keys/binding and loosing without unity/communion. Its impossible. You are now talking we know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not.

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukum. You stated:

No argument can be made that only Peter had the keys. . . . . but we cannot agree with Absolutist Petrine advocates that Jesus intended ONLY Peter to have the keys.

But I am not making that argument mardukum.

I am making the argument that only St. Peter was GIVEN the Keys.

I am making the argument that Jesus gave the Keys to St. Peter DIRECTLY.

I am making the argument that Jesus bestows the Keys to the other Bishops only through St. Peter whom “the Keys” are uniquely and exclusively entrusted to.

I am making the argument that Jesus commissioned St. Peter to “strengthen the brethren.”

Were other Bishops (Apostles) bestowed “the Keys”?

You already answered this mardukum.

You quoted Pope St. Leo on this very point in post 143 mardukum, but you forgot the part where Pope St. Leo stated, “what is bestowed on all (the Bishops) is **entrusted to one **(St. Peter).”

(Parenthetical additions mine.)

POPE ST. LEO “Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that He (Jesus) has given to others what He has not refused to bestow on them.” . . . . Blessed Peter is therefore told: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven. Whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. The authority vested in this power passed also to the other apostles, and the institution established by this decree has been continued in all the leaders of the Church. But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one.

(Parenthetical addition mine)

This is part of the reason why we don’t have a plethora of autocephalous bishops running around disagreeing with one another.

Because the autocephalous bishop paradigm does not work for unity when issues arise within the Church mardukum.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Lumen Gentium, states: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’”

His charge forces on him awareness that he, even more than other bishops, is “tied”, bound, by an obligation of strictest fidelity to the teaching transmitted down the centuries in increasingly defined form within the Church (though he himself is the final arbiter of what constitutes fidelity to those teachings)

The Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Saint Peter in the episcopal see of Rome is viewed as the head of the College of Bishops, as Saint Peter was the chief of the Apostles, and communion with him is considered essential for the existence of the College of Bishops. He has direct authority, which is not an authority mediated through other bishops, over the whole Church.

Which communion existed in the Bible with the apostles and in the early church. We are talking a deviation from the standard model.

He’s tied bound by Matthew 16 and everyone is tied bound to him or we have no unity and something other than what is Biblical, Historic with Unity of the Church, and in reality today.

 

[Cathoholic]

More Vatican II that likewise affirms Papal authority.

VATICAN II (Christus Dominus) 3. United in one college or body for the instruction and direction of the universal Church, the bishops, sharing in the solicitude of all the churches, exercise this their episcopal function, which they have received by virtue of their episcopal consecration [6] in communion with the Supreme Pontiff and subject to his authority. they exercise this function individually as regards that portion of the Lord’s flock which has been entrusted to each one of them, each bishop having responsibility for the particular church assigned to him. On occasion a number of bishops will cooperate to provide for the common needs of their churches.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is no getting around the conclusive evidence of Church unity in understanding first. From there understanding the keys and binding and loosing then becomes the conversation and as we read each and every Church Father. Read the commentary on the keys above, there’s a seriousness of this supernatural connection from “He that hath the key of David”. And He that built His Church upon St Peter and gave him that same key.

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen

“*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"

churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/peters-primacy/

They all thought slightly different but from one perspective, one Church Unity.

Is Matthew 16:18 about Peter or everyone?*

 

[MilesVitae]

Frankly, I’m not entirely sure I even know what is being argued about anymore, or why…but…

If everyone has the keys and authority to bind and lose, than like Church’s can be set up not in communion, which as we hear here regular “you have a different theology” . This cannot be possible for God would be binding and loosing differently for all. That’s impossible.

And, yet, it is true that all the Apostles and, thereafter, all the Bishops, possess the power to bind and loose.
Why would the possession of the keys authorize bishops to schism from the Church? I don’t understand the logic behind your claim.
I would think that the possession (or participation in the possession) of the keys by the bishops would signify their sacramental, teaching, and governmental authority in their own diocese/local church - whereas the Pope possesses them in a principal manner because he is the one bishop who has authority (whatever the nature of that authority be) not only over his own diocese but over the whole Church. Looking at it that way, how would possession of the keys by the bishops authorize schism on their part?

 

[GaryTaylor]

And, yet, it is true that all the Apostles and, thereafter, all the Bishops, possess the power to bind and loose.?

Yes they do and the Apostles biblically yesterday, consisted of the magisterium of today in which all are in communion with St Peter biblically and today.

Why would the possession of the keys authorize bishops to schism from the Church? I don’t understand the logic behind your claim…

Its not possession which cause’s one to schism nor did I say that. Its not being in communion which may or may not cause issues. If someone is not in communion and claims a different theology, is it an issue? Is God binding and loosing differently for different theologies?

Its Peters Faith and Person the Church is built on the Keys are deposited in the Church which was built upon Peter. If you are not in communion what makes you think you have any keys or power to bind and loose?

I would think that the possession (or participation in the possession) of the keys by the bishops would signify their sacramental, teaching, and governmental authority in their own diocese/local church -

Its does but just for inquiry purpose’s. Why would this power to bind and loose not do the same? And doesn’t one being ordained a Bishop already represent their authority?

whereas the Pope possesses them in a principal manner because he is the one bishop who has authority (whatever the nature of that authority be) not only over his own diocese but over the whole Church. Looking at it that way, how would possession of the keys by the bishops authorize schism on their part?

Nobody said this. Look at it this way, if you are not in communion and are a Bishop do you have the keys? Do you have the power to bind and loose? If you do show me in the early Church.

Actually I’m not arguing anything, I do believe all the Bishops in communion with Rome share the keys with the Pope. I’m merely excising my mind as to the beliefs of some the early church fathers thinking posted, which we agree all were in communion and thought slightly different about this, they all claimed unity was essential.,

This is what I said…“If everyone has the keys and authority to bind and lose, than like Church’s can be set up not in communion, which as we hear here regular “you have a different theology” . This cannot be possible for God would be binding and loosing differently for all. That’s impossible.”

Peace