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

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

I’m not sure that helps. The “keys” naturally involves three inherent elements (government and sacramental authority, among the three, which is what brother Gary and I are discussing). These three elements cannot be separated from the concept of the “keys.” In any case, the government of the Church belongs to all the bishops, not just the Pope, so even in that sense, it is not correct to claim that only the Pope has the keys or only the Pope was given the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, I was responding to this post, i.e., I was only attempting to say that I agree:

So it is impossible for Catholics who adhere to the High Petrine doctrine of the Catholic Church, which she has taught for 2 millenia,** to claim that ONLY the Pope holds or received the keys, or that Jesus gave the keys ONLY to St. Peter.**

I can conceive that within the High Petrine camp, there can be a distinction on this matter - namely, either:

(1) God gave the keys to Peter, who then shared it with the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys (IIRC, this is the form of it taught by Pope St. Leo); OR

(2) God gave the keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and therefore all their successors (the Pope and his brother bishops) possess the keys.

But it is outside the boundaries of the High Petrine teaching of the Catholic Church to claim that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys, or ONLY Peter received the keys.

I am supporting your argument, albeit, I take the view that Peter was given the keys but shares those keys with the other apostles and as such their successors.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks, sister Josie. Sorry for misreading your intentions. Should have known better.

Blessings

P.S. Great quotes in the Divine Institution thread, btw.

I was not claiming that only the Pope has the keys in the sense that only he has the power of the keys, i.e., I am supporting your argument, albeit, I take the view that Peter was given the keys but shares those keys with the other apostles and as such their successors.

 

[josie_L]

Thanks, sister Josie. Sorry for misreading your intentions. Should have known better.

Blessings

P.S. Great quotes in the Divine Institution thread, btw.

Finally, I get a compliment! :curtsey:

 

[josie_L]

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

What is the significance of Jesus saying, “You are Peter” and is “Peter” the same word as “rock” that Jesus will build His Church on?

What’s your Church’s official teaching on this exact phrase?

dronald, I want to know what you think of this:

Did the Church Fathers EVER speak about Peter’s confession as the Rock?

Mark Bonocore writes: It is true that some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18. However, all of these same Church fathers also speak of Peter himself as the Rock. This was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a “both-and” proposition. What the Church has always believed is that Christ Himself is the only TRUE Rock of the Church. But, in Matt 16:18, Peter (because of his Divinely inspired confession) was made the VICARIOUS Rock of the Church -the focal point of Church unity and sound, orthodox doctrine in Christ’s own physical absence. A parallel dynamic can be seen in John 21:15-19,. where Christ makes Peter the primary shepherd of His flock, telling Him to “feed my lambs” and “tend (“rule” in the original Greek) my sheep.” Jesus could “feed” and “tend/ rule” His own sheep. Clearly, He can, since He is God and since He is always the Church’s TRUE Good Shepherd. But, Jesus commands Peter to do it IN A VICARIOUS SENSE --that is, to lead the Church and govern it with sound teaching and unity in Christ’s PHYSICAL absence. Thus, there is only one TRUE Shepherd (Jesus Christ), and one primary VICARIOUS Shepherd to unify the entire flock (St. Peter). Likewise, there is only one TRUE Rock (the Lord Himself) and one Christ-appointed VICARIOUS Rock --that is, St. Peter, who was commissioned with this ministry in Matt 16:18-19 and then reaffirmed in this same ministry in Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19.

Conclusion

When we look at this passage grammatically, linguistically, historically and Biblically, it is quite clear that Jesus intended Peter to be the Rock.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php

p.s. I think you should read the whole article.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nowhere does Pastor Aeternus state that Jesus gave the keys to Peter ALONE. It only states that Peter alone had the primacy.

Here is the teaching of Lateran IV -
“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

The Catholic Church teaches that the Church, as a whole, holds the keys of authority in general way while the Roman Pontiff, being the chief representative for the Church on earth, holds the keys of Saint Peter in a particular way that is unique only to him. The Church as a whole holds the keys insofar as the bishops are in union with the Pope.

Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215

Desirous, therefore, of removing such scandal from the Church of God, and advised by the holy council, we strictly command that they do not presume to do such things in the future, but conform themselves as obedient children to the Holy Roman Church, their mother, that there may be “one fold and one shepherd.” If anyone shall presume to act contrary to this, let him be excommunicated and deposed from every office and ecclesiastical benefice.

 

[Cathoholic]

GaryTaylor. I said :

Originally Posted by Cathoholic

Despite what other people think, nobody else gets the keys from Jesus in Scripture.

You said:

Nobody else received the Keys!

Thanks for the correction!

I meant: Nobody else (except Peter) received the keys from Jesus in Scripture. (Yes I affirm Apostolic Succession and St. Peter’s successors do retain these “keys” too but I wasn’t trying to make that point here)

That’s why I also said:

Context is

• St. Peter gets the blessing
• St. Peter is the Rock
• St. Peter gets the keys

I was responding to House Harkonnen’s post 18 (bold mine):

Yes. Luther taught that the keys are given to the church. Since he is a member of the church, he has the keys as much as any other member of the church

(House Harkonnen. I am not saying YOU believe we are ALL given the keys, I am just responding to what you mentioned Luther as saying regarding all members getting the keys)

Again GaryTaylor. Many thanks for the correction above.

 

[robwar]

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

What is the significance of Jesus saying, “You are Peter” and is “Peter” the same word as “rock” that Jesus will build His Church on?

What’s your Church’s official teaching on this exact phrase?

There is a good book “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid. He addresses this and other misconcpetions, lies and rumors about the Papcy. Easy read and great book and this is discussed in there.

 

[mardukm]

The Catholic Church teaches that the Church, as a whole, holds the keys of authority in general way while the Roman Pontiff, being the chief representative for the Church on earth, holds the keys of Saint Peter in a particular way that is unique only to him. The Church as a whole holds the keys insofar as the bishops are in union with the Pope.

Agreed. It also cannot fail to be stated that the Pope holds the keys only as a member of the Church and in communion with his brother bishops in the College. Apart from those conditions, he does not.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nevertheless what is given to all in entrusted to one.

“But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

The Council of Nicaea. So we would be in agreement Pope Leo’s interpretation of Nicaea. Its also how Pope Benedict interprets in Light of the World.2010.

V-I is difficult language which imho oversteps the gift of which it was intended for. Another area is here.

“The meaning of the expressions kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God, and kingdom of Christ in Sacred Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the documents of the Magisterium, is not always exactly the same, nor is their relationship to the Church, which is a mystery that cannot be totally contained by a human concept. Therefore, there can be various theological explanations of these terms. However, none of these possible explanations can deny or empty in any way the intimate connection between Christ, the kingdom, and the Church. In fact, the kingdom of God which we know from revelation, “cannot be detached either from Christ or from the Church… If the kingdom is separated from Jesus, it is no longer the kingdom of God which he revealed. The result is a distortion of the meaning of the kingdom, which runs the risk of being transformed into a purely human or ideological goal and a distortion of the identity of Christ, who no longer appears as the Lord to whom everything must one day be subjected (cf. 1 Cor 15:27). Likewise, one may not separate the kingdom from the Church. It is true that the Church is not an end unto herself, since she is ordered toward the kingdom of God, of which she is the seed, sign and instrument. Yet, while remaining distinct from Christ and the kingdom, the Church is indissolubly united to bothâ€.73”

"In fact, “the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the Church’s visible boundaries†must not be excluded.74 Therefore, one must also bear in mind that “the kingdom is the concern of everyone: individuals, society and the world. Working for the kingdom means acknowledging and promoting God’s activity, which is present in human history and transforms it. Building the kingdom means working for liberation from evil in all its forms. In a word, the kingdom of God is the manifestation and the realization of God’s plan of salvation in all its fullnessâ€.75 "

The universal salvific will of God “who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

The Magisterium teaches the faithful in two ways;

1. Solemn Magisterium: is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching “ex cathedra”
2. Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the faith is declared.

 

[Stilldreamn]

But how does the dogma of Transubstantiation deprive the Eucharist of its “mysterious” character, since, as stated, it is certainly more mysterious that something can be what it appears not to be, than simply for two things to coexist side-by-side.

I am not speaking for Ben, only for my own understanding here!

It is simply that because we can’t know for sure how it happens, we can’t offer it as dogma. In other words, I personally could believe that it happens as the Catholic church describes, but it is my opinion only, pious speculation. It seems to me that it is the act of defining the nature of the mysterious process that Lutherans contest, not necessarily the process itself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It was to Simon alone that he said that, but he didn’t give him the keys at that point (or is that what you are claiming?)…

Yes I’m claiming He gave him the Keys at that point.

I believe he gave him, and the rest of the Apostles the keys when he breathed on all of them after the Resurrection, when he stated he gave them all the power to bind and loose.

There’s a mention of Keys there? Of course not. There’s a mention of binding and loose, which also is as we see an aspect of the magisterium. There’s is no mention of Keys and its far by me to contradict Gods word.

Verse is used among others to establish the magisterium. I don’t believe what you believe about the Keys nor do I believe it makes sense, show me anyone in history which is agreement with you in regard to Matthew 16?

Indeed, the Sacramental authority of the Church.is the essence of the keys, along with its government. The Sacramental authority is exercised through that divinely established government of the Church.

Through the primacy and those in communion.

Quoting a Father who merely quotes the Scripture at issue does not really resolve anything. Obviously, the keys are bound up with the government of the Church (according to the Isaiah 22 verse), as noted above.

Not sure why you bought this up? Wasn’t it you who first did exactly this to support your opinion and with Pope Leo? I’m good with the Bible and with Isaiah 22.

If you admit that it is the charism of the teaching authority, then it cannot possibly have been given to Peter alone (and to his particular successors alone). That is certainly not what Pope St. Damasus was claiming. Are you claiming that the Pope is the only true teacher in Christendom, and that the rest of the bishops are just his yes-men? That is the only possible conclusion if one claims that the keys are the teaching authority and Jesus gave the keys ONLY to St. Peter.

Its was given first to Peter as per the verse. And apparently its what you believe since you bought this up?

“But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

Does Leo indicate here that the reality of Matthew 16:18 took place at a later date? Of course not.

That the giving of the keys signifies that St. Peter is at the forefront is very far from claiming that the keys were given to St. Peter ALONE.

Your caught up in semantics. The process is clearly identified.

Vatican 1 makes sense of this confusion. It affirmed in Pastor Aeternus, contrary to the claims of the Absolutist Petrine neo-ultramontanists, that the primacy of the Pope is episcopal. The primacy does not make the Pope any more of a bishop than any of his brother bishops. The primacy is a NATURAL and INHERENT feature of the government of the Church (episcopate) which it obtained by Jesus passing on the keys to the Apostles. The Pope does not hold the primacy because he ALONE holds the keys, but because, according to Christ’s divine institution, primacy is an essential feature of the episcopacy that possesses the keys.

Its makes him exactly what is defined and on this thread. The Proto. And Leo “But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

What’s the good reason? Obviously Leo is at odds with your understanding that Peter actually didn’t receive the Keys in Matthew, but at a later date?

And again you refuse to acknowledge “which it obtained by Jesus passing on the keys to the Apostles”. This “NEVER occurred by scripture”. There is NO other mention of Keys. .

It is a biblical fact that in Mt. 16:18, Jesus did not actually give the keys at that moment to him,. Since he said he would give it to him, we need to determine from the biblical record when that occurred. The only logical time would be when he gave all of them the power to bind and loose.

No its not, and its a contradiction to those you quote. God blessed His own gift,s the gift was given then. Nor is there any mention of Keys later as suggested which you can’t seem to admit.

P.S. For any non-Catholic claiming there is no distinction between the Absolutist and High Petrine views within the Catholic Church, I hope this debate between myself and brother Gary obliterates that illusion.

The three exist for sure, to determine who is in which camp is a different situation, that’s for certain.

For example would it be wrong to assume which view you hold? How about I just assign the Low Petrine view to you? What would I be doing? Oh wait I would be stereo-typing you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many thanks for the correction above.

It wasn’t a correction it was an affirmation which I agree with and then further elaborated on.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

It seems to me that it is the act of defining the nature of the mysterious process that Lutherans contest, not necessarily the process itself.

Not sure how?

The term transubstantiation is taken from the Latin words trans (change) and substantia (substance). This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.

Confusion about the meaning of the Real Presence was bought on by the reformation this bought on further elaboration at Trent.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

The fact Lutherans today are not confused is a blessing and no-one ever talks about transubstantiation at mass. Its the RP all the way.

While its true Lutherans understanding is very similar, this is not true for other areas which indeed the reformation morphed into. So the reasoning of the Church, its safe to say is valid? One may disagree with transubstantiation, nevertheless the need to clarify became self evident.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gary,

Yes I’m claiming He gave him the Keys at that point.

Interesting. Makes you wonder why Jesus didn’t just say so then. Why “I WILL give you the keys,” instead of “I GIVE you the keys?” Why “I WILL build…” instead of “I build…?” The answer is pretty obvious. Christ had not yet established the ecclesia.

There’s a mention of Keys there? Of course not. There’s a mention of binding and loose, which also is as we see an aspect of the magisterium. There’s is no mention of Keys and its far by me to contradict Gods word.

Every Father of the Church equated the keys with the power of the keys. Even the scholastics did so. I suggest reading the link sister Josie gave earlier to the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Keys. I’m afraid your interpretation is a novelty. You don’t need to do that to defend the papacy. The Fathers are enough.

Verse is used among others to establish the magisterium. I don’t believe what you believe about the Keys nor do I believe it makes sense, show me anyone in history which is agreement with you in regard to Matthew 16?

Your whole argument depends on making a false distinction between the keys and the power of the keys, that exists nowhere in the history of the Church. So it is your own rhetoric that fails right off the bat.

Through the primacy and those in communion.

Amen.

Not sure why you bought this up? Wasn’t it you who first did exactly this to support your opinion and with Pope Leo? I’m good with the Bible and with Isaiah 22.

Its was given first to Peter as per the verse. And apparently its what you believe since you bought this up?

It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established. But according to Christ’s instructions, Peter would have the primacy, and it did not depend on him receiving the keys alone, or keeping it for himself. Also keep in mind that the “keys” are not some sort of physical thing. It was Jesus own power he was giving. There’s no temporal concept to be attached to this. The teaching on the primacy does not need such inventive rhetoric.

“But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

This needs to be read in context with what came before it:
“Out of the whole world one man, Peter, is chosen to preside at the calling of all nations, and to be set over all the apostles and all the fathers of the Church. Though there are in God’s people many shepherds, Peter is thus appointed to rule in his own person those whom Christ also rules as the original ruler. Beloved, how great and wonderful is this sharing of his power that God in his goodness has given to this man. 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.”

Does Leo indicate here that the reality of Matthew 16:18 took place at a later date? Of course not.

Taken in context with what he wrote above, it is obvious that the Lord gave his power through Peter at the same time he bestowed it on the other Apostles. Again, keep in mind, we are not referring to something physical that is constrained by space-time. We are speaking here of the Lord’s own authority. Sorry, it does not make any sense in the least that Christ would give to Peter something meant for the Church even before Christ established the Church.

Your caught up in semantics. The process is clearly identified.

What process?

Its makes him exactly what is defined and on this thread. The Proto. And Leo “But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

This is being presented eisegetically. Pope St. Leo clearly establishes before this that it was given to ALL through Peter. That’s what this means. It doesn’t mean it was given to Peter ALONE.

What’s the good reason? Obviously Leo is at odds with your understanding that Peter actually didn’t receive the Keys in Matthew, but at a later date?

Sure, it was with good reason that Christ said he WILL give the keys to St. Peter. What exactly is your point?

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

And again you refuse to acknowledge “which it obtained by Jesus passing on the keys to the Apostles”. This “NEVER occurred by scripture”. There is NO other mention of Keys.

No its not, and its a contradiction to those you quote. God blessed His own gift,s the gift was given then. Nor is there any mention of Keys later as suggested which you can’t seem to admit.

As mentioned, no historic source ever makes an epistemological distinction between the keys and the power of the keys. Maybe there are modern Catholics that do, but I’m sure you won’t mind if there are Catholics and other Christians who prefer to stick to Tradition. .

The three exist for sure, to determine who is in which camp is a different situation, that’s for certain.

For example would it be wrong to assume which view you hold? How about I just assign the Low Petrine view to you? What would I be doing? Oh wait I would be stereo-typing you?

Assigning a name to someone according to their belief is not stereotyping.

The dangers in the view that only St. Peter holds the keys or only St. Peter was given the keys are apparent, especially as the keys are connected with the government of the Church, as well as sacramental power and teaching authority. If only one actually holds the government, or the sacramental power, or the teaching authority, that just makes everyone else mere vicars of the Pope. The whole Absolutist Petrine paradigm actually seems to depend on the idea that ONLY St. Peter holds or was given the keys, and hence was passed ONLY to his successors in Rome. So even if you hold High Petrine views on all other issues, yet you still promote an Absolutist Petrine outlook on the very foundation of the matter, then we’ll never get rid of this Absolutist Petrine paradigm that is the cause of so much division in the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting. Makes you wonder why Jesus didn’t just say so then. Why “I WILL give you the keys,” instead of “I GIVE you the keys?” Why “I WILL build…” instead of “I build…?” The answer is pretty obvious. Christ had not yet established the ecclesia.

In my opinion this is hair splitting, the blessing, gift given in Matthew and to Peter alone, is blessed by God who blesses nothing but His own gifts. Its no different than the Blessing given to Paul headed to Damascus. Everything Paul accomplished was not fully manifested at the moment, as least in time as we know it.

Every Father of the Church equated the keys with the power of the keys. Even the scholastics did so. I suggest reading the link sister Josie gave earlier to the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Keys. I’m afraid your interpretation is a novelty. You don’t need to do that to defend the papacy. The Fathers are enough.

Not sure what your saying, the reality is there is little we disagree on here. One is above for certain and your thinking is a novelty there.

Your whole argument depends on making a false distinction between the keys and the power of the keys, that exists nowhere in the history of the Church. So it is your own rhetoric that fails right off the bat.

Your assuming here as I am not suggesting power at all. I’m talking about the gift of the teaching authority of the Church. I posted it above which is self manifested biblically and historically and yes with all the apostles as in Matthew later and Acts. Also binding and losing is enacted by Paul. Veto of like authority is read with Paul and Peter. I disagree with you understanding of the OP verse.

It was not given first to Peter. It was given to all the Apostles together when the Church was established. But according to Christ’s instructions, Peter would have the primacy, and it did not depend on him receiving the keys alone, or keeping it for himself. Also keep in mind that the “keys” are not some sort of physical thing. It was Jesus own power he was giving. There’s no temporal concept to be attached to this. The teaching on the primacy does not need such inventive rhetoric.

I believe its established we disagree here and again on the literal understanding of the verse. You cannot argue your point for several reasons. One is that you already agree the Church was divinely established on Peters Faith and Person.

This needs to be read in context with what came before it:
“Out of the whole world one man, Peter, is chosen to preside at the calling of all nations, and to be set over all the apostles and all the fathers of the Church. Though there are in God’s people many shepherds, Peter is thus appointed to rule in his own person those whom Christ also rules as the original ruler. Beloved, how great and wonderful is this sharing of his power that God in his goodness has given to this man. 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.”

When was he appointed this? In Matthew 16:18 and literally. Its not I’ll tell you I’m gonna bless you and then bless you later. He blessed Him then and the blessing as promised grew and was further blessed. Its communion and the very essence of Christs redemption. The natural sequence of further in Matthew and Acts only further reveals the truth illuminates itself.

Taken in context with what he wrote above, it is obvious that the Lord gave his power through Peter at the same time he bestowed it on the other Apostles. Again, keep in mind, we are not referring to something physical that is constrained by space-time. We are speaking here of the Lord’s own authority. Sorry, it does not make any sense in the least that Christ would give to Peter something meant for the Church even before Christ established the Church.

How you arrive at that is beyond my imagination.

It doesn’t mean it was given to Peter ALONE.

Your back on semantics as we know there is no “alone” But there is "alone’ in Matthew 16:18

Sure, it was with good reason that Christ said he WILL give the keys to St. Peter. What exactly is your point?

Which you know through Isaiah exercise of a stewardship in a household and in this case the teaching authority.

In Isaiah 22:22 we read, “The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Assigning a name to someone according to their belief is not stereotyping. .

Ok so you have a low petrine view and all those who favor high and absolute could sweep aside your thinking and dismiss as such.

The dangers in the view that only St. Peter holds the keys or only St. Peter was given the keys are apparent, especially as the keys are connected with the government of the Church, as well as sacramental power and teaching authority. If only one actually holds the government, or the sacramental power, or the teaching authority, that just makes everyone else mere vicars of the Pope. The whole Absolutist Petrine paradigm actually seems to depend on the idea that ONLY St. Peter holds or was given the keys, and hence was passed ONLY to his successors in Rome. So even if you hold High Petrine views on all other issues, yet you still promote an Absolutist Petrine outlook on the very foundation of the matter, then we’ll never get rid of this Absolutist Petrine paradigm that is the cause of so much division in the Church.

This seems to be a danger to you, which assumes your right which is rhetoric of a low petrine view.

 

[josie_L]

Nevertheless what is given to all in entrusted to one.

“But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is entrusted to one. For Peter received it separately in trust because he is the prototype set before all the rulers of the Church”

I agree that Peter is the keybearer, but I don’t think you and Marduk are far off in that if you look at LivingWordUnity’s post and Marduk’s response to it he is saying that Peter does the hold the power of the keys in a particular way vis a vis the other apostles (that is not low petrine view).

 

[josie_L]

Agreed. ** It also cannot fail to be stated that the Pope holds the keys only as a member of the Church and in communion with his brother bishops in the College**. Apart from those conditions, he does not.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, that should be obvious, i.e., the pope is not a dictator, i.e, he is bound by the constitutions of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

Perhaps what needs to be mentioned is the connection of the keys that were given to Peter with the steward of the royal house of David, i.e., what does the giving of the keys to Peter by Christ the King, Son of David, entail in light of this?