When was Peter given the keys?

[Alethiaphile]

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.

I can see that as a possibility, although it seems strange to me that, while grants of lesser authority to the other Apostles are explicitly and prominently mentioned in scripture, this grant of the greatest authority given by Christ is mentioned only obliquely.

I asked this question with a follow up question in mind which comes nearer to the crux of the matter for me: assuming that Christ gave the authority of the keys, which includes the charisms of universal jurisidiction and infallibility, uniquely to St. Peter and his successors, does this not require the conferring of some sort of sacrament, some sort of super-ordination, by Peter on his successor, and on down the line? After all, the “ordinary” ordination of the Apostles by Christ is described quite explicitly and solemnly in John 21, and was well-estbalished in the early Church as the mode of passing on the Apostolic power, yet clearly the successors of St. Peter, the popes, must be given additional charisms that the other bishops don’t have. Yet it seems that Rome says these charisms are conferred without any additional sacrament, by the bare assumption of a new pope of the office of bishop of Rome. That seems strange to me. How can such a tremendous authority and charism be given except sacramentally?
This problem (as I see it) is explained more fully (and probably better) in Philip Sherrard (Orthodox), Church, Papacy and Schism.

 

[foundthelight]

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.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Either Jesus is a liar or He did, at some time, confer this responsibility upon Peter. Just because the event is not explicit in the Bible does not give one the ability to deny the words of Christ. Peter was given the keys. To deny this is to call Christ a liar.

Your turn.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I can see that as a possibility, although it seems strange to me that, while grants of lesser authority to the other Apostles are explicitly and prominently mentioned in scripture, this grant of the greatest authority given by Christ is mentioned only obliquely.

I asked this question with a follow up question in mind which comes nearer to the crux of the matter for me: assuming that Christ gave the authority of the keys, which includes the charisms of universal jurisidiction and infallibility, uniquely to St. Peter and his successors, does this not require the conferring of some sort of sacrament, some sort of super-ordination, by Peter on his successor, and on down the line? After all, the “ordinary” ordination of the Apostles by Christ is described quite explicitly and solemnly in John 21, and was well-estbalished in the early Church as the mode of passing on the Apostolic power, yet clearly the successors of St. Peter, the popes, must be given additional charisms that the other bishops don’t have. Yet it seems that Rome says these charisms are conferred without any additional sacrament, by the bare assumption of a new pope of the office of bishop of Rome. That seems strange to me. How can such a tremendous authority and charism be given except sacramentally?
This problem (as I see it) is explained more fully (and probably better) in Philip Sherrard (Orthodox), Church, Papacy and Schism.

Matthew 16 describes both the foundation of the Church and the grant of the keys in the future tense, and the context suggests that they’re to be coincidental. The birthday of the Church isn’t explicitly spelled out either, but its existence is supposed by the time of the epistles. So I think your logic could be taken to affirm the proposition that the foundation of the Church hasn’t happened yet, either.

 

[foundthelight]

I asked this question with a follow up question in mind which comes nearer to the crux of the matter for me: assuming that Christ gave the authority of the keys, which includes the charisms of universal jurisidiction and infallibility, uniquely to St. Peter and his successors, does this not require the conferring of some sort of sacrament, some sort of super-ordination, by Peter on his successor, and on down the line? After all, the “ordinary” ordination of the Apostles by Christ is described quite explicitly and solemnly in John 21, and was well-estbalished in the early Church as the mode of passing on the Apostolic power, yet clearly the successors of St. Peter, the popes, must be given additional charisms that the other bishops don’t have. Yet it seems that Rome says these charisms are conferred without any additional sacrament, by the bare assumption of a new pope of the office of bishop of Rome. That seems strange to me. How can such a tremendous authority and charism be given except sacramentally?
This problem (as I see it) is explained more fully (and probably better) in Philip Sherrard (Orthodox), Church, Papacy and Schism.

Just as a successor to Judas was selected by the survivors, the Pope is selected by the College of Cardinals. All senior Bishops. In full knowledge and consent.

I don’t see your problem with this.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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

True. We just know that he had them. The Church that has the Keys of the Kingdom is Christ’s Church, so the Church that has the successor of Peter remains to be Christ’s Church.

New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth”, etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., “De Doctrina Christi”, xvii, xviii: “Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo” (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, “In Matt.”, xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

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

 

[Alethiaphile]

Either Jesus is a liar or He did, at some time, confer this responsibility upon Peter. Just because the event is not explicit in the Bible does not give one the ability to deny the words of Christ. Peter was given the keys. To deny this is to call Christ a liar. Your turn.

The question is whether the keys were conferred on Peter and his successors alone, as Rome teaches, or whether the keys were also given to the other apostles. St. Augustine, for example, thought that Peter received Christ’s promise of the kyes as a representative of the other apostles and the Church as a whole, so that all bishops, as successors of the Apostles, have the power of the keys.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The birthday of the Church isn’t explicitly spelled out either, but its existence is supposed by the time of the epistles. So I think your logic could be taken to affirm the proposition that the foundation of the Church hasn’t happened yet, either.

Except that both scripture and tradition attest to the birthday of the Church on Pentecost.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Just as a successor to Judas was selected by the survivors, the Pope is selected by the College of Cardinals. All senior Bishops. In full knowledge and consent.
I don’t see your problem with this.

The successor of Judas was, at most, a regular bishop, with the authority given to all the apostles at John 21. The pope, as successor of Peter, by Roman teaching, has additional powers and charisms, especially the power of the keys. How does he receive these additional powers?

 

[jmcrae]

The successor of Judas was, at most, a regular bishop, with the authority given to all the apostles at John 21. The pope, as successor of Peter, by Roman teaching, has additional powers and charisms, especially the power of the keys. How does he receive these additional powers?

By being elected Pope, in the line of succession to Peter.

 

[adstrinity]

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

It’s not twisting Scripture, it’s understanding Scripture in light of history and tradition.

 

[Usagi]

I asked this question with a follow up question in mind which comes nearer to the crux of the matter for me: assuming that Christ gave the authority of the keys, which includes the charisms of universal jurisidiction and infallibility, uniquely to St. Peter and his successors, does this not require the conferring of some sort of sacrament, some sort of super-ordination, by Peter on his successor, and on down the line?

The powers and charisms linked to the papacy are conferred upon assumption of the See of Rome, and given up should a man retire from that see.

It’s not like ordination, which is a permanent change that persists even in eternity. There is no special papal degree of ordination that places a man even higher than a bishop. The pope is a bishop like his brother bishops. Indeed, it was a pope who denied that anyone could ever hold the office of “bishop of the whole Church” in a way that would render other bishops mere delegates.

Becoming the successor to St. Peter at Rome is like becoming the successor to St. Peter at Antioch, or the successor to St. James in Jerusalem. A man may already have been a bishop before that, and have led other dioceses, but he enters that succession not by his ordination but by assuming the episcopacy of the particular see.

Notice that Pope Benedict XVI did not have to be specifically chosen and ceremonially invested by Pope John Paul II. The same is true of every other pope preceding them. From what little we know about St. Linus (Peter’s immediate successor as bishop of Rome), it seems he was ordained by Paul rather than Peter.

If it is your view (as it seems to be Isa’s) that an office like the papacy as described by Catholics would have to be conferred sacramentally and not by simple succession to a particular see, then it’s true that there is no such sacrament and never has been. The pope is the bishop of Rome, not a special super-bishop.

Usagi

 

[MDK]

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

Christ first changes Simon’s name to Peter (Kepha), then tells him that upon this Kepha, I will build my Church. Note this is also future tense. The reason for the “Prime Minister’s” role is as visible head of the Church, whereas Christ is the ultimate Head of the Church. Kepha is the rock upon which Christ will build His Church. The authority that Peter receives is in direct relation to the Church. Isn’t the actual exercising of the authority represented by the keys directly tied to the Church? When Christ establishes His Church, then Peter needs the authority. So the answer to when the authority is given is when it’s needed for the Church. When was the Church established? Most people say at Pentecost.

Another tidbit is that why would the King transfer authority to the “Prime Minister” while the King is still there? The idea of giving authority to the Prime Minister was so that it would be exercised while the King was away, in the Kings’s absence.

 

[Alethiaphile]

First, thank you Usagi, for your considered and educated reply. You at least understand what I am getting at.

Indeed, it was a pope who denied that anyone could ever hold the office of “bishop of the whole Church” in a way that would render other bishops mere delegates.

Indeed, Pope St. Gregory the Great, I believe. But that was in the 7th century, pre-schism. A lot changed after the schism, as you know.

The pope is the bishop of Rome, not a special super-bishop.

Well, then I don’t understand how it can be said:

1. That the pope uniquely has the power of the keys and that of binding and loosing in its fullness; something no other bishop has.
2. The pope has “full” and “immediate” jurisidiction over every diocese, parish and indeed individual Catholic over the entire earth. That means, theoretically. the pope can remove Father McGillicuddy at the parish of Wherever, USA if the pope wishes, without conferring with the local bishop or anyone else. It is indisputable that he has that power.
3. Bishops are both appointed and removeable at will by the pope. They are required to be “in communion with” him, which means nothing else than to “obey” him (encyclical “Satis Cogitem”).
4. The pope has the unigue authority to remit temporal punishment for sins (“indulgences”). Other bishops cna only do so by delegation from the pope.
5. The pope is the only individual who is protected from making false statements ex cathedra (“infallibility”), and can by himself bind the entire Church to a doctrinal teaching. His infallible pronouncements are “irreformeable” in and of themsleves, i.e. require no approval or reception by anyone else in the Church, and he is “always free” to exercise that power (“Lumen Gentium”, Vatican II).

If all that doesn’t describe a “super-bishop”, why not?

“What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever.”- Robert Taft, SJ, Pontifical Oriental Institute

 

[MDK]

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

Without humility it is impossible to please God. Is your interpretation guaranteed to be infallible? You’ve just put yourself above the Pope and Magisterium which have Apostolic Succession, and much more authority directly from Christ than you. Most people who leave the Church do so out of arrogance and lack sufficient humility. Others because they don’t really know Christ. How can they know Him if they misinterpret Scriptures and misunderstand the way Christ set things up? I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t trust Christ, or who trusts Christ on his or her own terms.

 

[Alethiaphile]

MDK- Tradition cannot contradict scripture. The Orthodox Church also has the Apostolic Succession, and it doesn’t agree with your interpretation.

 

[MDK]

MDK- Tradition cannot contradict scripture. The Orthodox Church also has the Apostolic Succession, and it doesn’t agree with your interpretation.

Yes, and you contradict both Scripture and Tradition. Out of ignorance or desire not to be under the authority of the “Prime Minister” of the King, people will deny the proper understanding of the papacy. Orthodox do have apostolic succession, but it was simply a power grab for them to come out from under the papacy. It’s a tragedy for them not to understand how Christ set things up. I trust in Christ, and don’t have the arrogance to do otherwise. The Orthodox also have heresy, which is to deny the papacy, the Prime Minister’s office of the King Jesus the Christ.

 

[Alethiaphile]

MDK- Spout what you want, I’m really not paying any attention to you. I’m sorry that you consider an interest in the truth to be “arrogance”. I’m sure you would have used that term of Galileo also.

 

[Gofer]

All the Apostles share Peter’s authority but he is the (earthly) anchor of their authority (and Christ is the sailor who drops the anchor).

About the “super-bishop” thing"

My Maronite pastor explained the Pope as having “three hats.” I think I’ve heard it elsewhere, but I’m going to call it the Three Hat theory:

Hat no. 1: The Pope can speak on behalf of all Christians in regards to faith and morals, with the agreement of his brother bishops. (in essence, Ecumenical Patriarch)

Hat no. 2: The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome and all the West.

Hat no. 3: The Pope is the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome and is equal to all other Bishops.

The Pope as the head bishop is the elder brother of his brother bishops. He is obeyed not out of fear and submission, but out of love and respect. In normal circumstances (95% of the time), the Holy Father is indeed equal to other bishops. and the other bishops are equal to him. Even moreso the Patriarchs. So I hope you understand that when Easterns and Orientals say our Patriarchs are equal to the Pope, it is simply because the very great majority of the time, the Pope is not exercising his unique Petrine ministry. If there was a time, say, that required the promulgation of an ex cathedra pronouncement or the calling of an Ecumenical Council, we will indeed give heed and cognizance to the fact that the Pope is undoubtedly the head bishop and has a SPECIAL and IRREPLACEABLE role among his brother bishops. But seriously - how often does THAT happen?

And given all this, rest assured that despite our belief that our Patriarchs are equal to the Pope in their day-to-day ministry to the Church, we all recognize that none of our Patriarchs has or claims to have, a universal jurisdiction in the Church, which we fully recognize is invested uniquely in the office of the papacy.

 

[MDK]

MDK- Spout what you want, I’m really not paying any attention to you. I’m sorry that you consider an interest in the truth to be “arrogance”. I’m sure you would have used that term of Galileo also.

Pity, as if you sought the Truth without reservations, we could be on the same team.

You appear to be sure of things, but reality has a different view. You seem to have a penchant for conveniently ignoring the truth, so it’s obvious why you would then want to ignore me, one who repeats God’s word without changing it for convenience.

Truth is not arrogance, but one who believes they are above Truth displays a great deal of arrogance.

The truth is Galileo was as arrogant as some of the priests back then. Galileo got into trouble not by his observations, which matched those of Catholic astonomers, but of claiming this changed the Church’s teaching where he had no business nor authority to go.

If you had truly interest in truth, then we would be on the same side. When you interpret as you want, when you’re opposing the Truth, then we’re on opposite sides. Your arrogance has and will continue to lead you on your own path, and not on God’s.

 

[Alethiaphile]

All the Apostles share Peter’s authority but he is the (earthly) anchor of their authority (and Christ is the sailor who drops the anchor).
About the “super-bishop” thing"

Hat no. 2: The Pope is the Patriarch of Rome and all the West.

Actually, Rome has explicitly disavowed the title “Patriarch of the West”.