I bet you are. You have not answer for it.
Did the actual Papal Fathers from St. Peter to St. Gregory VII (1000 years) ever use it to justify their claims?
St. John Cassian on Peter as Royal Steward
Isaiah 22 shows is that an office existed – that is, the office of Prime Minister to the King of Israel; and Jesus, Who is the promised King and Messiah of Israel, makes Simon Peter His own Prime Minister in Matt 16:18-19.
Even St. John Cassian, a BYZANTINE GREEK and a disciple of St. John Chrysostom, noticed this connection. For, he writes …
“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)
Matthew 16:18-19 talks about “binding” and “loosing” and refers to “keys” (plural). Clearly, St. John Cassian is taking his language directly from Isaiah 22 which speaks about the power to “open and shut” and which confers the authority of a “Key” (singular) over the “House” of David (i.e., the Church).
It seems like a modern invention of apologetics.
No, it is a defense offered by modern apologetics since disbelief in the Papacy is itself a modern novelty.
Silence is sometimes a really important indicator of what people believed.
Or simply an indication that there was not NEED to discuss something that was commonly held. But arguments from silence are fallacious, aren’t they?
The Lord applied the same language to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and in John 20. Although the Keys are absent there, I’ve heard it said that the “keys” (A) & “binding-loosing” (B) are a “B=A” Hebraism. If that’s so, then the whole Church and all the apostles were granted these keys as stewards. I also personally find the “single royal steward” idea tenuous in the context of Christ’s whole teaching in the Gospel about humility, long-suffering, and working with one’s neighbour. “Re-establish” would be the right word, for there was no King of Israel by the time of Christ.
Your’re right. The keys ARE absent in Matthew 18, and this leaves you empty-handed. Along with all the other Apostles.
That’s a neat association. I’m not sure I find it very convincing, but it’s nice.
If Jesus is a greater king than Hezekiah, why would His Royal Steward be lesser than that of Pharoah or Hezekiah? THEY had universal authority in their respective kingdoms. So does Peter.
And just who are the successors of Peter? That’s probably the whole point of this thread. “Scripture Catholic” and other websites are fine and good, but this is a matter of deep patristic study. I wish it wasn’t so shallow as a few proof-texts and “therefore you are wrong”.
Patristics? How many quotes from the ECF’s do I need to bury you with to prove your error? Or would I just be “proof-texting” by quoting the lists of the successors of Peter?
Why is Rome alone equivalent to Peter? [edited for space]
All of the apostles had successors, but only one was the successor of the Chief Steward. That happened to be Linus who succeeded Peter in Rome.
And yes, I could bury you with quotes concerning the Primacy of Rome.
My real fear is that this whole system is built up on a collapse of papal integrity when the popes accepted the domineering, hierarchical ways of this World during the feudal age. That is how it has been presented to me. It has been not a little harmful to my faith. Perhaps it is a legitimate development - and that would be fine - but please don’t tell me that the Papacy of AD 1070 is the same as the Papacy of AD 570 or AD 70.
No, instead I would show you WHY it is not. And the logic of that is unassailable.
[quote]If Isaiah 22:22 and Mt. 16:19 correspond, then surely Isaiah 22:22 and Mt. 18:18 correspond as well. If so, what can we say about that?
Surely not. Because there is only ONE key-holder as you yourself have already admitted. Luther did, too, by the way.
Didn’t the other Apostles receive that as well? Where do you get that idea?
Yes, each apostle was individually infallible. Only one, however, was given the symbols of the chief steward. You just don’t want to admit that.
Presumably you’re referring to the Gates of Hades not prevailing. Since those are the gates merely of death and not of “Hell”, necessarily, it doesn’t follow that error is implied by “Hades”, does it? I understand Hades to mean death and the power against the Gates of Hades to be the resurrection of Christ. Who is reading what into this text?
Perhaps reading what some scripture scholars have “read into this text” would benefit you.
This syllogism does not seem adequately supported to me. I wish it was more thoroughly hashed out. If you can answer my questions above, I’ll be very happy**.**
Sounds like another thread to me. Please feel free to start it, and try to limit your self to one question. It makes it easier to discuss.