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

[GaryTaylor]

As stated, WHEN St. Peter received the keys is really inconsequential to me,

What does Matthew 16:18 mean to you? Seems to me the entire verse is inconsequential to you. Along with 17 and 19. None of which you address. Your contribution is various opinions summed up with “This is more in line with my intent.”

Councils mean what to you? You reject those you disagree with, you conclude Leo arrives at the same conclusion you do, which clearly he doesn’t.

And now you have no time to prove your opinion with patristics.

The verse brother Marduk and 17-19 would help clarify.

Brother Markum, just address the points we are all busy and so forth and so on. Save the typing and assumptions on what you think I think.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.

Nevertheless what is given to all in entrusted to one.

That’s a good way to summarize it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Catechism

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church.

He gave “him” the keys of his Church and instituted “him shepherd of the whole flock”.

Oh and also…

“The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 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.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[josie_L]

Dear brother Gary,

As stated, WHEN St. Peter received the keys is really inconsequential to me, so apart from what I have already stated, it is not important for me to discuss. I have other obligations to other members on more important topics. So if you have nothing else to offer in our debate about whether Peter alone or ALL the Apostles received the keys (and by virtue of apostolic succession, whether the Pope alone or ALL the bishops possess the keys), then I think we can end this discussion.

My only real concern has been that non-Catholics who are reading this discussion will not get the false impression that the point of view you propose is the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. I think I have sufficiently proven that (heck, I even quoted one of the Latin Ecumenical Councils, Lateran IV).

Maybe someone else will have something new to add, and I will join the discussion then.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, the thread is about how we interpret Matthew 16:18 in totality, i.e., not just the keys, that being said, what connection is there between Matthew 16:18 and Isaiah 22:22, wherein Shebna receives the keys of the royal household (I think in speaking of the keys you’ve never mentioned this). Therefore, can you provide more details concerning Matthew 16:18 and the keys (in what way does Peter, the keybearer, use the keys in a particular manner)?

 

[josie_L]

Peter would receive the keys symbolically as described by Christ in Matthew 16:18, but as Marduk pointed out the keys would not be in use while Jesus was still around, i.e., the keys/the power of the keys could only be exercised with the establishment of the Church (they all used the power of the keys simultaneously). However, the singling out of Peter by Christ to hand over the keys must signify something, i.e., primacy (being first), that being said, what kind of primacy? Can it be justified to call Peter. the (figurative) keybearer, even if the whole Church generally holds/possesses the power of the keys? As LivingWordUnity mentioned the keys are utilized by Peter in a particular way, i.e., is that due to the fact that Jesus Christ singled him out by giving him the keys or because he is the rock or because of both these reasons?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The argument is Peter in person and faith receives the “primacy” its not the Church the Keys the power to bind and lose, its the primacy. The fact Marduk pointed out the keys would not be in use while Jesus was still around, i.e., the keys/the power of the keys could only be exercised with the establishment of the Church (they all used the power of the keys simultaneously) means what? The CCC tells you all that above. Why listen to Marduk and not the CCC?

What does that mean to Markum oh wait “WHEN St. Peter received the keys is really inconsequential to me,”

By Markums same logic nothing occurred in Matthew `16:17-18-19. Markum argues Paul and the conversion didn’t occur, who argues that?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul

He wants to argue against a ghost called the absolute petrine view and took the same failing argument elsewhere to preach the absolute voodoo nonsense to whoever will listen.

 

[josie_L]

The argument is Peter in person and faith receives the “primacy” its not the Church the Keys the power to bind and lose, its the primacy. The fact Marduk pointed out the keys would not be in use while Jesus was still around, i.e., the keys/the power of the keys could only be exercised with the establishment of the Church (they all used the power of the keys simultaneously) means what? The CCC tell you all that above. Why listen to Marduk and not the CCC?

What does that mean to Markum oh wait “WHEN St. Peter received the keys is really inconsequential to me,”

By Markums same logic nothing occurred in Matthew `16:17-18-19. Markum argues Paul who argues that?

Obviously, Matthew is trying to say something in Scripture about Peter (even if historically the power of the keys could only be used with the establishment of the Church). First, Peter did not receive the keys at Caesarea Philippi, however, by dint of Matthew’s words, Peter must have received the (symbolic) keys from Jesus before ascending into Heaven, so yes, in a sense he was the first to receive the keys because Christ singles him out, i.e., this is what we know from Matthew. But once he receives the keys, does this preclude that Peter does not share this key with the other apostles by virtue of their being in communion with him? We also know because of Matthew that Christ speaks only to Peter in Matthew 16:18, yet in Matthew 18, we realize that the power of loosing and binding is also given to the apostles (without reference to the keys). This I believe is significant, i.e., what is Matthew trying to say? Do the reception of the keys by Christ to Peter signify his singular role as steward (I know that St. Ephraem of Syria makes this connection). In Isaiah 22:22 there is only one prime minister/steward, and he was second only to the king, was Matthew’s purpose to delineate this so that the audience reading scripture would know that Peter is the prime minister in the kingdom of God? The answer would be yes. I think that although Peter is entrusted with the keys in a particular manner, that because of Tradition we must also believe that through Peter the keys are manifested in the Church by the other apostles. I think however we can still call Peter, the keybearer, nevertheless.

 

[josie_L]

The Catechism is not your statement, but the Catechism’s (which itself does not support a one-sided Pope alone paradigm). Your statement to which I was referring was “I will fail to state that. I think if anything it is the other way around.,” after I had pointed out (after agreeing with LivingWordUnity) 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.” The Pope’s necessary consent and the concurrent consensus with his orthodox brother bishops are two sides to the same coin. BOTH are necessary according to the divine constitution of the Church.

I agree with this, but at the same time, when taking the bishops on an individual basis, it is only the bishop of Rome whose consent is absolutely necessary, for example, if we look back to the pre-schism Church, not all bishops would agree on this or that doctrine/dogma, in fact we know that the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch all at one point fell into heresy (their consent at an ecumenical council was not crucial per se). However, the one bishop whose consent was absolutely necessary in confirming or ratifying conciliar decision was/is the bishop of Rome. It is his ratification of a council already agreed upon by various bishops (with obvious dissenters) that solidified its status as ecumenical, i.e., binding on all Christians.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Josie,

Marduk, the thread is about how we interpret Matthew 16:18 in totality, i.e., not just the keys, that being said, what connection is there between Matthew 16:18 and Isaiah 22:22, wherein Shebna receives the keys of the royal household (I think in speaking of the keys you’ve never mentioned this). Therefore, can you provide more details concerning Matthew 16:18 and the keys (in what way does Peter, the keybearer, use the keys in a particular manner)?

I am in agreement with the old CE article that states that the keys refer to the three powers of government, sanctification, and teaching. Isaiah 22 supports the notion that the keys refers to the government of the Church. The keys were given PRINCIPALLY to St. Peter who necessarily - according to Christ’s own order for His Church - shared it with his brother Apostles. The keys, as indicated, are defined by the power/office of government, sanctification, and teaching. And these keys were passed down to the Pope and his brother bishops.

Here is my original statement which brother Gary has seen fit to oppose:

This is one of those “High Petrine” distinctions to which I often refer. Absolutist Petrine advocates prefer to insist that the Pope ALONE has the keys. High Petrine advocates, following the traditional Tradition of the Catholic Church, do not claim that.

But, to be perfectly clear, I believe the CC would disagree with two points of the excerpt from the Treatise. Namely:
(1) “The keys were given PRINCIPALLY and directly to the Church.” Catholics believe the keys were given PRINCIPALLY and directly to St. Peter (since that is exactly what Scripture records).

While we both agree that the keys are given to St. Peter, he denies that the keys are PRINCIPALLY given to St. Peter. Instead, his claim is that the keys were given ONLY to St. Peter and so no other Apostle possesses it, and, by the principle of Apostolic Succession, then ONLY the Pope possesses it, and no other bishop possesses it. I hope you agree that his claim is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.

I pointed out originally that this is a distinction between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views - the idea that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys. And he flatly admitted that he believes this Absolutist Petrine view can be held by High Petrine advocates — which I think started the whole debate because such a position cannot be claimed by High Petrine advocates (i.e., that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys), who believe in the doctrine of collegiality.

Thankfully, he quoted the Catechism, which directly opposes his opinion. It is clear that the Church teaches (according to the Catechism) that the office of binding and losing (which is what the keys are) was also given to the Apostles - given THROUGH St. Peter, but given to them nonetheless - which was also the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great. Hence, the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, also possess the keys along with the Pope, who PRINCIPALLY possesses the keys as the successor of St. Peter. The CC nowhere teaches this novelty that ONLY the Peter received or possesses the keys, or that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys.

I hope you can understand and share my indignation at the Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim to defend the papacy, but are really only making a laughing stock of it to other Apostolic Christians who profess to adhere to Sacred Tradition. A previous Council admitted by Latins to be Ecumenical (Lateran IV), specifically taught that the bishops are also given the keys, and now we have Absolutist Petrine advocates claiming that V1 is contradicting its own Tradition by claiming that it is teaching that ONLY the Pope has the keys. The Absolutist Petrine view is detrimental not only to Church unity, but to evangelization itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I agree with this, but at the same time, when taking the bishops on an individual basis, it is only the bishop of Rome whose consent is absolutely necessary, for example, if we look back to the pre-schism Church, not all bishops would agree on this or that doctrine/dogma, in fact we know that the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch all at one point fell into heresy (their consent at an ecumenical council was not crucial per se). However, the one bishop whose consent was absolutely necessary in confirming or ratifying conciliar decision was/is the bishop of Rome. It is his ratification of a council already agreed upon by various bishops (with obvious dissenters) that solidified its status as ecumenical, i.e., binding on all Christians.

Indeed. The Pope, as head bishop of the Church universal, and according to the ancient Apostolic Canon 34, is the only bishop whose SINGULAR consent is necessary for the validity of the acts of the college on a matter affecting the entire Church If bishop A or bishop B individually disagrees with the college, that will not really affect the validity of the collegial act on a matter affecting the entire Church. But if the head bishop, according to Apostolic Canon 34, does not consent, then it would, and much discussion would have to ensue (in the process, perhaps the head accepting correction, perhaps the other bishops accepting correction) before that act can be regarded as having universal (or “ecumenical”) validity.

If non-Catholics cannot recognize that the necessary consent of the bishop of Rome is merely an application of the ancient Apostolic Canon, then that is very unfortunate - for them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Obviously, Matthew is trying to say something in Scripture about Peter (even if historically the power of the keys could only be used with the establishment of the Church). First, Peter did not receive the keys at Caesarea Philippi, however, by dint of Matthew’s words, Peter must have received the (symbolic) keys from Jesus before ascending into Heaven, so yes, in a sense he was the first to receive the keys because Christ singles him out, i.e., this is what we know from Matthew. But once he receives the keys, does this preclude that Peter does not share this key with the other apostles by virtue of their being in communion with him?.

He does share the power of binding and losing, however if its not given to Peter here why does anything think its was given here…18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

He didn’t give it to the person’s here? He did right? And as long as they kept Peters Faith then they are in communion with Peter no?

I still didn’t see no mention of Keys, “if” Keys were mentioned above then that wouldn’t be their person or faith? I don’t see the argument or everything is irrelevant till Pentecost.

We also know because of Matthew that Christ speaks only to Peter in Matthew 16:18, yet in Matthew 18, we realize that the power of loosing and binding is also given to the apostles (without reference to the keys).

So did they actually receive this in person here? Why did they receive it?

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. 19"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.…
What Church? The one non-existent till Pentecost? No the one built on Peter and his Faith???

This I believe is significant, i.e., what is Matthew trying to say?

I think he gave the apostles “in person” the power to bind and loose. And that’s according to Peter faith, its was given to Peter on faith and person? So if they are communion with

Peter then they have his faith and the college is complete?

Course none of this might have happened to Pentecost?

Do the reception of the keys by Christ to Peter signify his singular role as steward (I know that St. Ephraem of Syria makes this connection).

Yes, and its exercised through the apostles or magisterium, those in communion with Peter.

In Isaiah 22:22 there is only one prime minister/steward, and he was second only to the king, was Matthew’s purpose to delineate this so that the audience reading scripture would know that Peter is the prime minister in the kingdom of God? The answer would be yes. I think that although Peter is entrusted with the keys in a particular manner, that because of Tradition we must also believe that through Peter the keys are manifested in the Church by the other apostles. I think however we can still call Peter, the keybearer, nevertheless.

One person had the Keys?

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

Right here

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church.

He gave “him” the keys of his Church and instituted “him shepherd of the whole flock”.

“The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 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.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

No mention of Keys. Rather quiet on that no? Then reading the Cardinal who seems to think only Peter received the keys I don’t know.

What good are these Keys if indeed the chain of events are correct which I believe they are and the CCC is correct if your not in Rome? What would you do with them? Is it now suggested that Peter isn’t needed?

 

[josie_L]

Dear sister Josie,

I am in agreement with the old CE article that states that the keys refer to the three powers of government, sanctification, and teaching. Isaiah 22 supports the notion that the keys refers to the government of the Church. The keys were given PRINCIPALLY to St. Peter who necessarily - according to Christ’s own order for His Church - shared it with his brother Apostles. The keys, as indicated, are defined by the power/office of government, sanctification, and teaching. And these keys were passed down to the Pope and his brother bishops.

Here is my original statement which brother Gary has seen fit to oppose:

While we both agree that the keys are given to St. Peter, he denies that the keys are PRINCIPALLY given to St. Peter. Instead, his claim is that the keys were given ONLY to St. Peter and so no other Apostle possesses it, and, by the principle of Apostolic Succession, then ONLY the Pope possesses it, and no other bishop possesses it. I hope you agree that his claim is contrary to the Tradition of the Church.

I pointed out originally that this is a distinction between the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views - the idea that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys. And he flatly admitted that he believes this Absolutist Petrine view can be held by High Petrine advocates — which I think started the whole debate because such a position cannot be claimed by High Petrine advocates (i.e., that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys), who believe in the doctrine of collegiality.

Thankfully, he quoted the Catechism, which directly opposes his opinion. It is clear that the Church teaches (according to the Catechism) that the office of binding and losing (which is what the keys are) was also given to the Apostles - given THROUGH St. Peter, but given to them nonetheless - which was also the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great. Hence, the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, also possess the keys along with the Pope, who PRINCIPALLY possesses the keys as the successor of St. Peter. The CC nowhere teaches this novelty that ONLY the Peter received or possesses the keys, or that ONLY the Pope possesses the keys.

I hope you can understand and share my indignation at the Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim to defend the papacy, but are really only making a laughing stock of it to other Apostolic Christians who profess to adhere to Sacred Tradition. A previous Council admitted by Latins to be Ecumenical (Lateran IV), specifically taught that the bishops are also given the keys, and now we have Absolutist Petrine advocates claiming that V1 is contradicting its own Tradition by claiming that it is teaching that ONLY the Pope has the keys. The Absolutist Petrine view is detrimental not only to Church unity, but to evangelization itself.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, thank you for this explanation, but I have one more question, when you say that Isaiah 22 is connected to Church government,you have to do so in light of Matthew 16:18 (because this is the only time we hear of Jesus handing over the keys), is therefore Matthew alluding that Peter is Shebna (there were many ministers in the royal kingdom, but one in particular carried the keys, i.e., the prime minister/steward). Thus, although all the apostles share the keys through Peter, Matthew is trying to state something more. Especially when you see that 2 chapters later, Matthew refers to the other apostles ability to loose and bind as per Jesus (but without mentioning the keys). The keys therefore mean more than loosing and binding, I think that Matthew is alluding to the fact that Peter is now the “keybearer” so to speak within the kingdom, i.e., the prime minister/steward.

God bless!

 

[GaryTaylor]

(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.

 

[mardukm]

Marduk, thank you for this explanation, but I have one more question, when you say that Isaiah 22 is connected to Church government,you have to do so in light of Matthew 16:18 (because this is the only time we hear of Jesus handing over the keys), is therefore Matthew alluding that Peter is Shebna (there were many ministers in the royal kingdom, but one in particular carried the keys, i.e., the prime minister/steward). Thus, although all the apostles share the keys through Peter, Matthew is trying to state something more. Especially when you see that 2 chapters later, Matthew refers to the other apostles ability to loose and bind as per Jesus (but without mentioning the keys). The keys therefore mean more than loosing and binding, I think that Matthew is alluding to the fact that Peter is now the “keybearer” so to speak within the kingdom, i.e., the prime minister/steward.

Yes, I agree with the image of a “keybearer,” because that denotes not that he owns the key, but merely that he has the RESPONSIBILITY for it.

The “keys” are the power and authority of Christ Himself (governing, sanctifying, teaching), that He gave to St. Peter and the Apostles (and by apostolic succession to the Pope and his brother bishops). St. Peter (and his successors, the Pope of Rome), have the primary RESPONSIBILITY for these keys (i.e., the power and authority of Christ), but they ALONE do not possess it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

(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.

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you disagree with the old CE which explains that the “keys” are the power to forgive, govern, and teach, that you disagree with Pope St. Leo who asserted that the Lord intended for St. Peter to share this power. and that you disagree with Lateran IV that the bishops are given the keys.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, I agree with the image of a “keybearer,” because that denotes not that he owns the key, but merely that he has the RESPONSIBILITY for it.

The “keys” are the power and authority of Christ Himself (governing, sanctifying, teaching), that He gave to St. Peter and the Apostles (and by apostolic succession to the Pope and his brother bishops). St. Peter (and his successors, the Pope of Rome), have the primary RESPONSIBILITY for these keys (i.e., the power and authority of Christ), but they ALONE do not possess it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Owns it? Where did that arrive from???

But you cannot show anywhere anything about the keys except the fact they were given to Peter in Matthew 16:18 in “person and faith” yes? The RESPONSIBILITY?

 

[josie_L]

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

I think I know what you mean but it’s a little confusing, so let me explain below.

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church.

He gave “him” the keys of his Church and instituted “him shepherd of the whole flock”.

Yes, in scripture, we see that Peter is given the keys, and I think that the reason Matthew does this is to allude to the fact that Peter is now Shebna within the government of the Church (that is why the keys are not mentioned in Matthew 18), i.e., because there can only be one prime minister/steward (he was the keybearer in the royal kingdom). The keys connote primacy in regard to Matthew 16:18 vis a vis Peter, but the keys also represent other things, i.e., loosing and binding . . .etc. and these things are shared by the other apostles so they too in a manner possess the power of the keys/keys (not in the same way, of course).

What good are these Keys if indeed the chain of events are correct which I believe they are and the CCC is correct if your not in Rome? What would you do with them? Is it now suggested that Peter isn’t needed?

Matthew was making sure that everyone knew who the prime minister of Christ’s Church would be, i.e., Peter, that is why he probably referenced the keys in the first place, i.e., to identify who that person was. As I said earlier the other apostles share in the powers of the keys (but not in the same way as Peter) because they are in communion with Peter (and he with them).

p.s. Knowing what the role of Peter is vis a vis the prime minister/steward of the royal kingdom, might help delineate what some of his duties are.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, I agree with the image of a “keybearer,” because that denotes not that he owns the key, but merely that he has the RESPONSIBILITY for it.

The “keys” are the power and authority of Christ Himself (governing, sanctifying, teaching), that He gave to St. Peter and the Apostles (and by apostolic succession to the Pope and his brother bishops). St. Peter (and his successors, the Pope of Rome), have the primary RESPONSIBILITY for these keys (i.e., the power and authority of Christ), but they ALONE do not possess it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think I know what you mean but it’s a little confusing, so let me explain below.

Yes, in scripture, we see that Peter is given the keys, and I think that the reason Matthew does this is to allude to the fact that Peter is now Shebna within the government of the Church (that is why the keys are not mentioned in Matthew 18), i.e., because there can only be one prime minister/steward (he was the keybearer in the royal kingdom). The keys connote primacy in regard to Matthew 16:18 vis a vis Peter, but the keys also represent other things, i.e., loosing and binding . . .etc. and these things are shared by the other apostles so they too in a manner possess the power of the keys/keys (not in the same way, of course).

Matthew was making sure that everyone knew who the prime minister of Christ’s Church would be, i.e., Peter, that is why he probably referenced the keys in the first place, i.e., to identify who that person was. As I said earlier the other apostles share in the powers of the keys (but not in the same way as Peter) because they are in communion with Peter (and he with them).

p.s. Knowing what the role of Peter is vis a vis the prime minister/steward of the royal kingdom, might help delineate what some of his duties are.

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.

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.

.

 

[Cathoholic]

Mardukum you said RE: the Pope:

you seem to place immediate trust in the Pope first, and only second to your bishop.

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.

you seem to place immediate trust in (Episcopal) democracy first, and only second to your bishop.

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:

It is clear from V2 that the bishops hold their teaching authority in and of themselves, not “through” the Pope.

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.