When was Peter given the keys?

[Isa_Almisry]

…cont.'dLet me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, “That’s clever.” But he said, “You don’t have to follow the Pope because of that.” I said, “Why not?” And he said, “Well, I’m going to have to think about it.” He said, “I’ve never heard that argument before.” And I said, “It’ s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you’ve never heard of him before?” I said, “I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people.” And he said, “That’s clever.” Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

…
Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king’s cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.

This Eliakim “prophecy” doesn’t seem to have caught on before the last century. Someone finally found a reference to it in during the Reformation in a manuscript of De Sales, though it is not clear from his post, if it was ever published before the 19th century. That still lives 15 centuries to explain.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4242941#post4242941

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I agree. I think the reasons for leaving the Catholic Church should be addressed, rather than a simple difficulty of interpretation. For, the one who is Catholic ought not to worry about this simple thing. You, however, who are considering leaving the Catholic Church, consider rejecting its authority and its ability to provide the truth.

So…

What’s the main issue?

Perhaps its claims to authority and to provide the Truth.

 

[adstrinity]

And adds to it (the blood, strangled things, fornication, etc.), and he states “Ijudge [emphasis his]”, and the decision is his words, not St. Peter’s.

St. Peter stated, binding on the whole Church, no circumcision.

St. James added his opinion: he thinks that the Church should send out letters that the Old Covenant no longer applies. He opined how to carry out St. Peter’s binding judgement.

…Of course, you cannot see it like that, you will not, by your concious accpet this, but, that is how it can be interpreted. Simple.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

And adds to it (the blood, strangled things, fornication, etc.), and he states “Ijudge [emphasis his]”, and the decision is his words, not St. Peter’s.

In one sense, you’re absolutely right. St. James is stating his belief, based upon Scripture and Peter’s opinion. A Catholic layperson, or even a Catholic Apostle/Bishop, should do the same. Even though these people had personal revelations from God, they still grounded their beliefs in Scripture and the teachings of the Church. So he’s stating his personal interpretation of the orthodox position, which is quite right, and is the Will of the Holy Spirit (see v. 28, where Peter and James are acknowledged as having spoken on behalf of the Holy Spirit). Upholding the special role of the Bishop doesn’t discredit Catholic ecclesiology - it affirms it.

In another sense, it’s not quite that simplistic. You seem to be inferring from this that he is the one who makes the final decisions. This is obviously anti-Scriptural: clearly, no one reads Matthew 16:17-19 (or any other passage) as Christ setting up His Church on St. James. It’s an absurd conclusion.

But more to the point of this passage, the Bible I’m using translates the start of Acts 15:19 as “Therefore I conclude,” and while it’s a Protestant translation that contends that the James-as-head-of-the-Church approach might be acceptable, it acknowledges three other viable interpretations (which I think are preferable, given the other Scriptural authority on the issue):

57tn Or “I have decided,” “I think.” The verb κρίνω (krinw) has a far broader range of meaning than the often-used English verb “judge.” BDAG 568 s.v. κρίνω 3 places this use in Acts 15:19 in the category “judge, think, consider, look upon” followed by double accusative of object and predicate. However, many modern translations give the impression that a binding decision is being handed down by James: “it is my judgment” (NASB, NIV); “I have reached the decision” (NRSV). L&N 22.25, on the other hand, translate the phrase here “I think that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles.” This gives more the impression of an opinion than a binding decision. The resolution of this lies not so much in the lexical data as in how one conceives James’ role in the leadership of the Jerusalem church, plus the dynamics of the specific situation where the issue of Gentile inclusion in the church was being discussed. The major possibilities are: (1) James is handing down a binding decision to the rest of the church as the one who has ultimate authority to decide this matter; (2) James is offering his own personal opinion in the matter, which is not binding on the church; (3) James is voicing a consensus opinion of all the apostles and elders, although phrasing it as if it were his own; (4) James is making a suggestion to the rest of the leadership as to what course they should follow. In light of the difficulty in reconstructing the historical situation in detail, it is best to use a translation which maintains as many of the various options as possible. For this reason the translation “Therefore I conclude” has been used, leaving open the question whether in reaching this conclusion James is speaking only for himself or for the rest of the leadership.

Finally, this is a Church council, by all accounts. Church councils are done ***in harmony with ***the Pope… the Pope doesn’t have to be the one doing all the talking, or even any of the talking - the Papal role in most Church councils is much more limited than non-Catholics expect. So even if the Holy Spirit is moving through one member to say, “This is exactly what He wants,” this again doesn’t upset Catholic ecclesiology. Even in the Catholic interpretation, this is a prayerful consultation of all of those in leadership positions, not simply Peter sending down orders: see Vatican I and II for more modern examples.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

St. Peter stated, binding on the whole Church, no circumcision.

St. James added his opinion:

The word is κρίνω

The means decree, determine, judge: properly, to distinguish, i.e. Decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish – avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

Not an opinion, just compare where else it occurs and change it to “opinion”:

Luke 19:22 "He said to him, 'Out of your own mouth will I express my opinion on you, you wicked servant! You knew that I am an exacting man, taking up that which I didn’t lay down, and reaping that which I didn’t sow. The parable is about the final judgment, ooops, the Final Opinion.

John 5:30 I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I express my opinion, and my opinion is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.

John 8:15 You express your opinion according to the flesh. I express my opinion on no one
John 8:16 Even if I do express my opinion, my opinion is true, for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. Ah yes, the Way, the Opinion and the Life.

John 12:47 If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn’t believe, I don’t express my opinion of him. For I came not to express my opinion the world, but to save the world. Kum ba ya.

Acts 7:7 ‘I will express my opinion on the nation to which they will be in bondage,’ said God, 'and after that will they come out, and serve me in this place. I’m sure the ancient Egyptians would prefer that.

he thinks that the Church should send out letters that the Old Covenant no longer applies. He opined how to carry out St. Peter’s binding judgement.

Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

Where do you see a judgment, let alone binding, in there?

…Of course, you cannot see it like that, you will not, by your conscious accept this, but, that is how it can be interpreted. Simple.

Btw, the Universal reaffirmed St. James’ "opinion at Gangra c. 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html
adopted by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon c. 1, and Quintisext c. 2

The Ecumenical Quintisext c. 67
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lxviii.html

And the Fifth Ecumenical Council
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html

Note, that the Fathers of the Council, when they speak of the Council of Jerusalem, do not mention St. Peter. Odd.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The word is κρίνω

The means decree, determine, judge: properly, to distinguish, i.e. **Decide (mentally **or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish – avenge, **conclude, **condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, **call in question, **sentence to, think.

Not an opinion, just compare where else it occurs and change it to “opinion”:

I think you’ve proven my point. And all of your verses showing that sometimes it means the judicial form of judgment, rather than a personal judgment (what we call an “opinion”). When Paul uses a variant of the verb in 1 Corinthians 10:15, he obviously isn’t giving his readers the power to damn him, whereas when Christ uses the term to describe His own capacity, He does mean the power of damnation.

So I think we agree. The word can mean lots of different things. It doesn’t mean “opinion” every time, as you amusingly showed, and it does mean “authoritative judgment” every time. And your “mentally decide” definition just seals the deal, right?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In one sense, you’re absolutely right. St. James is stating his belief,

and the Church has agreed with him ever since.

based upon Scripture and Peter’s opinion…so he’s stating his personal interpretation of the orthodox position, which is quite right, and is the Will of the Holy Spirit (see v. 28, where Peter and James are acknowledged as having spoken on behalf of the Holy Spirit).

Another example of eisogesis. The text says:
The Apostles, Elders and Brethren…For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials
and then follows the quote of St. James’ “opion.” It says nothing of St. Peter. Except along with the other Apostles.

Upholding the special role of the Bishop doesn’t discredit Catholic ecclesiology - it affirms it.

Hefele, Newman and Strossmayer would be glad to hear that.

In another sense, it’s not quite that simplistic. You seem to be inferring from this that he is the one who makes the final decisions. This is obviously anti-Scriptural: clearly, no one reads Matthew 16:17-19 (or any other passage) as Christ setting up His Church on St. James. It’s an absurd conclusion.

The issue only comes up if you believe in a supreme pontiff.

Scripture was quoted.

And Matthew 16 (which didn’t exist at the time,btw) wasn’t it.

Generations of Christians have read Matthew 16 without reading Ultramontanism into it. Among the Orthodox, generations still do.

No one who reads Acts 15 without an Ultramontanist agenda fails to see that St. James made the final decision.

Their is other scripture, more closely related to the Council of Jerusalem: Galatians 2:9 “James, [oops, who’s first?] Peter, and John, who were considered to be the pillars of the Church”

And the Tradition states that St. James was as chosen by Christ Himself to be bishop of Jerusalem, and Peter, John and James did not dare to take “the glory.”

But more to the point of this passage, the Bible I’m using translates the start of Acts 15:19 as “Therefore I conclude,” and while it’s a Protestant translation that contends that the James-as-head-of-the-Church approach might be acceptable, it acknowledges three other viable interpretations (which I think are preferable, given the other Scriptural authority on the issue):

of course Ultramontanism has no part in that.

Go through all the other verses with a form/derivation of κρίνω
strongsnumbers.com/greek/2919.htm
and translate them as “opinion” and see the resulting absurdities.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Finally, this is a Church council, by all accounts. Church councils are done ***in harmony with ***the Pope…

so says the pope.
The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II said otherwise:
And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all. Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith. On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby. And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.”

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong 307as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.”

So also the Lord himself says: “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam proferre): And when we heard this answer, having the Apostle’s admonition in mind, that “each one must give an account of himself to God” and fearing the judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further recalling what was said by God to Paul: “Fear not, but speak, and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee.” Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.

the Pope doesn’t have to be the one doing all the talking, or even any of the talking - the Papal role in most Church councils is much more limited than non-Catholics expect. So even if the Holy Spirit is moving through one member to say, “This is exactly what He wants,” this again doesn’t upset Catholic ecclesiology. Even in the Catholic interpretation, this is a prayerful consultation of all of those in leadership positions, not simply Peter sending down orders: see Vatican I and II for more modern examples.
Pope Vigilius, btw, was in town because the emperor dragged him there, literally. And the Council was held over his objection, and he was struck from the diptychs.

Btw, the Second Ecumenical Council, the one who wrote the Universal Creed, was not done in “harmony with the pope.” The Fathers at it were not in communion with Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think you’ve proven my point. And all of your verses showing that sometimes it means the judicial form of judgment, rather than a personal judgment (what we call an “opinion”). When Paul uses a variant of the verb in 1 Corinthians 10:15, he obviously isn’t giving his readers the power to damn him, whereas when Christ uses the term to describe His own capacity, He does mean the power of damnation.

Look at the context of I Cor. 10:15
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

St. Paul is not saying idolatry is a personal decision, or that profanity of the Real Presense is a personal opinion. Both lead to DAMNATION.

So I think we agree. The word can mean lots of different things.

No, different shades of authority is not “lots of different things.”

It doesn’t mean “opinion” every time, as you amusingly showed,

It never does. That’s γνώμη: advice, judgment, mind, purpose, will

and it does mean “authoritative judgment” every time.

Yes, it does.

And your “mentally decide” definition just seals the deal, right?

No, it doesn’t mean a personal opinion.

It means opinion in the sense of “the opinion of the court.”

You can mentally decide if you want to follow it or not.

I decided once not to, and got three weeks in jail.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

No, it doesn’t mean a personal opinion.

It means opinion in the sense of “the opinion of the court.”

You can mentally decide if you want to follow it or not.

I decided once not to, and got three weeks in jail.

I don’t understand how “mentally deciding to follow a court order” would be considered you judging or damning the court. But I’m possibly misunderstanding what you’re saying here.

My point was just that the range of the term, meaning everything from a condemnation to something as simple as an opinion - a personal judgment, what your definition called mentally deciding. I think 1 Cor. 10:15’s, “judge for yourself” illustrates this. The individual can decide to believe or not believe this. If they decide wrong, they’re liable for those false beliefs, surely. But that’s not the same as saying that “judge for yourself” means you get to make others abide by your personal or internal judgment.

Based upon the original 4 categories from the footnote I supplied, the first (St. James as being able to authoritatively define something binding the others) would be only the heretical one, as I understand it. I don’t mean to undermine the authority of St. James, though - he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, an enormous position of prominence within the Church. But that didn’t put him above St. Peter. The elders had an important say in the Council as well, but that didn’t put them above the Apostles. You get the idea, I think. But at no point was St. Peter just passing out orders in this.

I’m confused, I guess, as to what you’re actually arguing?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t understand how “mentally deciding to follow a court order” would be considered you judging or damning the court. But I’m possibly misunderstanding what you’re saying here.

I’m saying that the causual meaning of “opinion” in English is not Krino, that is “gnome.” The meaning of opinon in English overlaps krisis and gnome, but krisis and gnome do not overlap. In fact the Fathers state that Christ is different from us in that He has no gnomic will (something we got from the fall).

My point was just that the range of the term, meaning everything from a condemnation to something as simple as an opinion - a personal judgment, what your definition called mentally deciding.

That’s just it, it does reach that lower end.

I think 1 Cor. 10:15’s, “judge for yourself” illustrates this. The individual can decide to believe or not believe this.

He is NOT saying the Truth of it is up to personal judgment, the fact that he states that death is the result (11:29-30) of judging wronly is an indication of that.

Saint Paul is saying "Judge me, as to whether it is true or not.

If they decide wrong, they’re liable for those false beliefs, surely. But that’s not the same as saying that “judge for yourself” means you get to make others abide by your personal or internal judgment.

But that is exactly what St. Paul is saying.

Based upon the original 4 categories from the footnote I supplied, the first (St. James as being able to authoritatively define something binding the others) would be only the heretical one, as I understand it.

Not anymore than Vatican I as we understand it.
I don’t mean to undermine the authority of St. James, though - he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, an enormous position of prominence within the Church. But that didn’t put him above St. Peter.
As the Tradition of St. James’ election as patriarch of Jerusalem records, St. Peter (and John and James the Greater) defered to him, “as if appointed by the Lord.”

The elders had an important say in the Council as well, but that didn’t put them above the Apostles. You get the idea, I think. But at no point was St. Peter just passing out orders in this.

St. Peter was in no way the center of the Council. Galatians shows St. Peter was in Antioch, yet he went up with everyone else to Jerusalem to get the decision.

We see St. Peter at the center of things in the beginning of Acts. He is not there in Acts 15.

That’s how the Father saw it, as my quote from the Fifth Ecuemnical Council and its absence of a mention of St. Peter in the account of the Council of Jerusalem shows.

 

[adstrinity]

Btw, the Universal reaffirmed St. James’ "opinion at Gangra c. 2
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html
adopted by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon c. 1, and Quintisext c. 2

The Ecumenical Quintisext c. 67
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lxviii.html

And the Fifth Ecumenical Council
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html

Note, that the Fathers of the Council, when they speak of the Council of Jerusalem, do not mention St. Peter. Odd.

Note that this site is a Calvinistic site which is, by it’s nature, against Tradition. Note that you cite a site that is not objective in what it choses to list as, while it does list some Catholics, St. Augustine and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, (and others) it leaves others out, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Benedict, but it does list Dante Alighieri, who I don’t think died in union with the Church, and lists promenant Protestants such as: Loraine Boettner, Jacobus Arminius, John Calvin, and Martin Luther (and others). It states, “The Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a digital library of hundreds of classic Christian books selected for edification and education. The online www.ccel.org server reaches several million different users each year.” One would wonder what is it that needs to be edified for some who need to be educated. Odd.

I don’t see St. James name there, either. Odd. While I DO see names of other Saints, I’m wondering what this is as I came across, " and the holy Roman Church as well had anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had not been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives: and of each we have the evidence in our hands," and the Church would not have reffered to Herself as, “…The Holy Roman Church…” And, seeing as how this is speaking in third person, I do not find this a Church document.

I’m saying that the causual meaning of “opinion” in English is not Krino, that is “gnome.” The meaning of opinon in English overlaps krisis and gnome, but krisis and gnome do not overlap. In fact the Fathers state that Christ is different from us in that He has no gnomic will (something we got from the fall).

Wait. What? Please explain this further. Are you saying Jesus didn’t have His own opinion/will? He did the will of the Father, as He is also God, but, if he didn’t have his own opinions, how could He have been tempted?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Note that this site is a Calvinistic site which is, by it’s nature, against Tradition.

Not that it has the Ecumenical Councils, which are, by their nature, THE Tradition.

Note that you cite a site that is not objective in what it choses to list as, while it does list some Catholics, St. Augustine and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas, (and others) it leaves others out, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Benedict,

I could whine about how many Orthodox Fathers it does not include. You know something better?

but it does list Dante Alighieri, who I don’t think died in union with the Church, and lists promenant Protestants such as: Loraine Boettner, Jacobus Arminius, John Calvin, and Martin Luther (and others). It states, “The Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a digital library of hundreds of classic Christian books selected for edification and education. The online www.ccel.org server reaches several million different users each year.” One would wonder what is it that needs to be edified for some who need to be educated. Odd.

I’m all open for you to point out something better in English (I could, and do, post in Greek, Latin and Syriac, but that limits the audience a bit).

I don’t see St. James name there, either. Odd. While I DO see names of other Saints, I’m wondering what this is as I came across, " and the holy Roman Church as well had anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had not been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives: and of each we have the evidence in our hands," and the Church would not have reffered to Herself as, “…The Holy Roman Church…” And, seeing as how this is speaking in third person, I do not find this a Church document.

So Satan quoting the Psalms in Matthew 4:6 nullifies them as Scripture?

Wait. What? Please explain this further. Are you saying Jesus didn’t have His own opinion/will? He did the will of the Father, as He is also God, but, if he didn’t have his own opinions, how could He have been tempted?

Christ had a will θέλημά, will as in “Thy Will be done,” which we have to, although clouded by the will γνώμη

 

[foundthelight]

When doesn’t matter. The fact that He did give them to Peter does.

 

[jmcrae]

First, full disclosure: I am presently Catholic in union with Rome, but have been seriously considering for some time, and now more than ever, becoming Orthodox.
Now, my question:

Jsesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah… I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” Matt. 16: 17-19, NAB. Emphasis mine.

The use of the future tense indicates that Jesus didn’t give Peter the “power of the keys” at the time He spoke those words. Roman Catholicism maintains that Peter received a unique power and authority of “the keys”, over and above the authority given to the other apostles (something Orthodoxy does not believe). So my question is, when was this power actually given to Peter? Joe

It seems to me that Peter received his final Commissioning in John 21:15-19. There is no mention made of the Keys, here, but he is definitely being elevated to “chief shepherd” of the Church, and it is from this point onward that he becomes the spokesman for the Apostles and for the Church.

 

[Alethiaphile]

What are your reasons for wanting to leave the Church? Maybe addressing some of those head-on will be of more help. I don’t mean any disrespect, of course, but it seems that exegesis isn’t really what’s motivating your desired interpretation of these verses, or Peter’s role.

First, sorry I was absent for awhile. Second, no disrepect taken, but I really want to focus on the question I asked, for the present. Suffice to say here, I have extreme difficulties with several of the post-schism Roman doctrines, and the doctrines of universal papal supremacy and papal infallibility are among them. Hence my concern about when Peter received the power of the keys from Christ.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Note, when all the Apostles are given the power to forgive sins, it is in the Present tense.

Indeed.

 

[Alethiaphile]

I agree. I think the reasons for leaving the Catholic Church should be addressed, rather than a simple difficulty of interpretation. For, the one who is Catholic ought not to worry about this simple thing. You, however, who are considering leaving the Catholic Church, consider rejecting its authority and its ability to provide the truth. So…
What’s the main issue?

As I explained to another poster, my main issue is several Catholic doctrines, and the teaching on the keys as an authority unique to the pope is one of them. I explained this in my initial post.

 

[Alethiaphile]

St. Peter stated, binding on the whole Church, no circumcision.
St. James added his opinion: he thinks that the Church should send out letters that the Old Covenant no longer applies. He opined how to carry out St. Peter’s binding judgement.
…Of course, you cannot see it like that, you will not, by your concious accpet this, but, that is how it can be interpreted. Simple.

Only by twisting scripture, and I refuse to do that.

 

[Alethiaphile]

When doesn’t matter. The fact that He did give them to Peter does.

But how do you know that they were thus given to Peter, if there is no scriptural account of it? If you say “Church tradition”, then you need to find widespread support in the pre-schism Church for it. I doubt it is there, but I’m all ears.