Whose Keys are These?

[Mickey]

The Sacred Scriptures are the products of infallibility and therefore the evidence that infallibility exists in the Church and has since the Old Testament.

The Eastern Orthodox Church belief about Holy Scripture that is the Bible of the Old Testament and the New Testament we must be fully aware from within Holy Tradition. Tradition, is a life, a personal encounter with Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit. Tradition then not only is kept by the Church - it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Bible is then the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man.

The soul of Holy Orthodoxy is prayer, and it is also Holy Scripture since the Christian Church is a Scriptural Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the beliefs of the Old Testament, the New Testament and including several books of the Apocrypha. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church therefore looks to Holy Scripture the Bible as the supreme expression of God"s revelation to man, and it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition). It is from the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church, which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

This is the case being that from the many sayings in the Bible which by themselves are far from clear, and the individual reader, however sincere, is in danger of error if he trusts his own personal interpretations. Now we can say that the Orthodox Christian when reading Holy Scripture, accept the guidance of the Church. Therefore who helps us in understanding Holy Scripture and who guides us? First the Holy Spirit and secondly above all we in the Orthodox Church turn to the Holy Fathers over the many centuries which have helped with the interpretations of the Bible or as the Eastern Orthodox Church like to express: Holy Scriptures.
+Father Demetrios Serfes

 

[Mickey]

You think the Pope is a baby sitter?

I don’t know. Do you?

The Episcopal Church has a bishop who cares for her flock. She recently married her female lover.

Oh brother. It took longer than usual for this thread disintegrate…but it has finally happened.

 

[Barbkw]

I don’t know. Do you?
Oh brother. It took longer than usual for this thread disintegrate…but it has finally happened.

Why do you say that? My comments are precisely on target to the conversation.

Why is the office of the Pope important?

And, if it is…is it from God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

And if so, where in Sacred Scripture was it created?

 

[qOcOp]

The Eastern Orthodox Church belief about Holy Scripture that is the Bible of the Old Testament and the New Testament we must be fully aware from within Holy Tradition. Tradition, is a life, a personal encounter with Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit. Tradition then not only is kept by the Church - it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Bible is then the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man.

The soul of Holy Orthodoxy is prayer, and it is also Holy Scripture since the Christian Church is a Scriptural Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church follows the beliefs of the Old Testament, the New Testament and including several books of the Apocrypha. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church therefore looks to Holy Scripture the Bible as the supreme expression of God"s revelation to man, and it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition). It is from the Church that Holy Scripture ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church, which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

This is the case being that from the many sayings in the Bible which by themselves are far from clear, and the individual reader, however sincere, is in danger of error if he trusts his own personal interpretations. Now we can say that the Orthodox Christian when reading Holy Scripture, accept the guidance of the Church. Therefore who helps us in understanding Holy Scripture and who guides us? First the Holy Spirit and secondly above all we in the Orthodox Church turn to the Holy Fathers over the many centuries which have helped with the interpretations of the Bible or as the Eastern Orthodox Church like to express: Holy Scriptures.
+Father Demetrios Serfes

This doesn’t address anything I have said. I know the Scriptures are from the Church and that the Holy Bible has been given to us only because we have a Church that has Authority! What I’m asking you is how can this Authority exist in the Church if you deny the Church the mark of infallibility? How could Divine Revelation exist in the Church if God had not given the Church the means (infallibility) to convey what has been Divinely Revealed! You profess you have Authority while at the same time denying the possesion of the gift that you would have to have in order for this Authority to exist in your Church! Your professing a contradicition!

 

[Barbkw]

Who decides in the Orthodox faith, when Bishops have conflicting interpretation concerning the interpretation of moral issues:

contraception, abortion, euthanasia, women’s ordination, protection of marriage, chastity in same sex attraction, in vitro fertilization, heretical interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc. ?

 

[Mickey]

Why do you say that? My comments are precisely on target to the conversation.

Poppycock! Your comments about the Epicopalians have nothing to do with this “conversation.”

 

[Barbkw]

Poppycock! Your comments about the Epicopalians have nothing to do with this “conversation.”

Yes, it does. They are an example of how Sacred Scripture can be revisioned and “rewritten” in homilies and in society when decisions concerning the Church are left to the Church body and to various dissenting priests and bishops.

P.S. Poppycock?

 

[Mickey]

I know the Scriptures are from the Church

When the entire Church was Orthodox.

What I’m asking you is how can this Authority exist in the Church if you deny the Church the mark of infallibility?

Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the nous, or mind of the Church, which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16); and the praxis of the church (including among other things asceticism, liturgy, hymnography and iconography).

We reject Papal infallibility. There is a good book for you to read by Florensky titled, The Myth of Papal Infallibility.

Before the great schism, I see no evidential writings about a supreme infallible pontiff.

Your professing a contradicition!

Instead of further insults, do you have anything further about the subject of this thread?

 

[Mickey]

Yes, it does. They are an example of how Sacred Scripture can be revisioned and “rewritten” in homilies and in society when decisions concerning the Church are left to the Church body and to various dissenting priests and bishops.

Are you talking about situations such as nuns teaching reiki, yoga, and other forms of Hinduism, Zen Christian monasteries, Liturgical modern dancers, and clown masses?

 

[Mickey]

I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I will not have access to the internet for the next few days and the conversation has veered way of course and become less than charitable. Thanks to those who kept it charitable for a couple days. Peace to all during the remainder of Bright Week! Please forgive me for own uncharitable comments.

See you around James!

Khristós Anésti! Alithós Anésti!

Christos Voskrese! Voistinnu Voskrese!

al-Masīḥ qām! Ḥaqqan qām!

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

That sinner,
Mickey

 

[Nicea325]

Are you a sola Scripturist? It is the protestants who usually say: show me where that is in Scripture.

Read this thread and the quotes I have posted from the Church Fathers instead of jumping in and starting all the same arguments over again. Thank you.

Nice divergence Mikey. First of all your assumption or the possibility that I am a Sola Scripturist is absolutely false. Show me where Christ gave the other 11 keys? Did he give the others the power to bind and loose? Yes! But where in scripture does Jesus even hint or assign the others keys? Sounds like pure conjecture from evidently those opposing Peter as THE head Apostle,namely Orthodox and Protestants.

As for the ECF,read enough on them. The issue here are the keys,which you believe ALL 12 received. Show me Mickey where Jesus implicitly even mentions it?

As I stated,many Protestants and Mormons make the same claim as you,but when asked for evidence, I hear nothing but excuses and divergences.

 

[Barbkw]

Mickey,

Please look at this particular website and tell me if it holds to your Orthodox views. Or, if is even an Orthodox website.

(There are websites saying that they are Catholic and even have Catholic in their name yet they are 100 % in disagreement with Church morals and faith (as determined by our Popes).

inclusiveorthodoxy.org/node/67

and here:

inclusiveorthodoxy.org/node/68

 

[qOcOp]

When the entire Church was Orthodox.

Yes orhodox because it was and still is in union with the Bishop of Rome the Pope. That was orthodox Christianity and still is in the Catholic Church. It just so happens that this type of orthodox behavior was also practiced in the Old Testament Church when God instituted Patriarches to lead His people while protecting them from doctrinal error (e.g., Moses)!

Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the nous, or mind of the Church, which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16); and the praxis of the church (including among other things asceticism, liturgy, hymnography and iconography).

Precisely my point! You interpret and you do so without authority. You claim your interpretation is truth but you do not know for sure nor could you claim to! This is because you deny the mark of infallibility which is needed for the Church to convey such truths and interpretations of truths with Authority and without error!

We reject Papal infallibility. Before the great schism, I see no evidential writings about a supreme infallible pontiff.

One would think that you of all people would understand that it was and is the practice of the Church to defend the Church’s position only when a doctrine that has been commonly held by the faithful becomes questioned or attacked by those outside or within the Church. I mean really what point would there be in defending a doctrine no one has a problem with?

Instead of further insults, do you have anything further about the subject of this thread?

Saying that you profess a contradiction was not an insult but rather a statement regarding the sad reality of your belief.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
We reject Papal infallibility. Before the great schism, I see no evidential writings about a supreme infallible pontiff.

You reject it as NOW,but that was not always case. And before Nicea in 325 I do not see evidential writings about the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation-do you? Does it make false?

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL! Why would I be interested in protestant scholars?

Because your previous assertion was:

I think it is innovation by the modern day RC apologists.

Since I have now demonstrated to you that Protestants also hold the same view, your assertion is proven incorrect.

If both Catholics and Protestants agree on the matter, you might want to re-evaluate the matter because it can no longer be dismissed as lightly as you thought.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your friend cannot be correct because the Greek word for “you” in Matthew is in the singular–so clearly only Peter receives the keys in this passage. And I think it’s pretty clearly an allusion to Isaiah 22, although the Septuagint of Isa. 22:22 is problematic in this regard—reading something like “and I will give the glory of David to him and he will rule and no one will speak against him.” No shoulders, keys or opening or shutting or binding and loosing. However, it’s all there in the Hebrew text.

The narrative gist of Isaiah 22 is that the king takes away power over his household from Shebna (22:15) and gives it in the form of keys (he’s the master of the household) to Eliakim (22:20). However, I’m guessing because the Roman Catholic lectionary ends its reading at verse 23 (21st Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A, I believe) there seems to be some unfamiliarity with how the story of Eliakim actually turns out. If you keep reading, you’ll note that Eliakim utterly fails in his responsibility: “I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. On that day, says the LORD of hosts,* the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish*, for the LORD has spoken.”

This prediction from Isaiah exactly mirrors what happens in Matthew 16–in less than 10 verses, Peter goes from being “the man with the keys” to being a “Satan” (16:23). Matthew’s portrayal of Peter overall follows this same pattern–Peter usually begins well and ends poorly (14:28-31; 17:1, 18:21 and of course the whole chapter of Matthew 26).

Because of Peter’s failure in chapter 16, Jesus strikingly “re-delegates” the power to bind and loose to all of the apostles–this time using “you” in the plural (18:18-19)–clearly giving all the apostles equivalent authority.

Wow. You did great right up to the last paragraph.

ALL the apostles abandoned Jesus at Gethsemane…except John, of course.

Matthew 18 mirrors Matthew 16, but there is only one royal steward. Binding and loosing are only one aspect of the keys.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Maybe you missed it where I said by virtue of the binding and loosing, all the Apostles hold the keys. St Peter was not the “supreme” Apostle.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

:nope:

One King. One Steward. One set of keys.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Huh? Nobody is trying to disprove St Peter’s role in the Church. He had a primacy of honour. He was a spokesman. He was bishop of Antioch and Rome. He was martyred. He was equal with all the Apostles.

But he was not supreme leader.

Peter alone was established as the royal steward. The steward has the highest authority in the kingdom - after the king, of course.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Wow. You did great right up to the last paragraph.

ALL the apostles abandoned Jesus at Gethsemane…except John, of course.

Matthew 18 mirrors Matthew 16, but there is only one royal steward. Binding and loosing are only one aspect of the keys.

So you would at least agree then that all disciples in Matthew’s Gospel have the equivalent power to bind and loose?

I think the allusion to Isaiah 22 shows that Peter, parallel to Eliakim, forfeits his job as “royal steward,” whatever that may or may not have entailed–now Peter’s just like the rest of the disciples (other than being “the rock”); they also misunderstand what it means for Jesus to be Messiah. Recall that Peter’s initial honor is based solely on his understanding of the identity of Jesus. Once it is revealed that he actually doesn’t understand what Jesus-as-Messiah means, his “keys to the kingdom,” so to speak, no longer function. The Hebrew text is quite severe toward Eliakim.

It would also be interesting to know why the Catholic lectionary omits the last part of that reading from Isaiah. It would go perfectly with Peter’s denial, which I think is read the following Sunday.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you would at least agree then that all disciples in Matthew’s Gospel have the equivalent power to bind and loose?

That is clear from Matthew 18. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

**“The keys of the kingdom” **

551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal."281 They remain associated for ever with Christ’s kingdom, for through them he directs the Church:
As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.282

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the “living Stone”,285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

I think the allusion to Isaiah 22 shows that Peter, parallel to Eliakim, forfeits his job as “royal steward,” whatever that may or may not have entailed–now Peter’s just like the rest of the disciples (other than being “the rock”); they also misunderstand what it means for Jesus to be Messiah. Recall that Peter’s initial honor is based solely on his understanding of the identity of Jesus. Once it is revealed that he actually doesn’t understand what Jesus-as-Messiah means, his “keys to the kingdom,” so to speak, no longer function. The Hebrew text is quite severe toward Eliakim.

The point of the reference to Isaiah 22 (aside from the obvious re-establishment of the office) is to illustrate that the office continues in existence even when there is a change of office holder. IOW, Is. 22 not only tells us that Peter has received the office of royal steward but also that Peter’s successors will receive it, also.

Shebna was succeeded by Eliakim. Eliakim was succeeded by someone else. etc.

Peter was succeeded by Linus. Linus was succeeded by Anacletus. etc.

Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of His royal steward is eternal, also.

Neither Shebna nor Eliakim were good examples of what a royal steward should be. Some popes have not been, either.

So what?