Response to MT's post


kainosktisis, you know as well as I do that there is no original Aramaic text, as is with the Greek.

When you say Jesus spoke in Aramaic, you are guessing. As I am when I insist He was speaking Greek. However, the Greek language was the only popular language in His day and the Aramaic was secondary.

There are other ways to convey the message in Greek in the way you insist it was meant in Aramaic. The Greek translator was not stumped because of the gender issue on the word rock.


The Catholic tradition is not based exclusively on Isaiah. C reference to Genesis below. Quoting the website I referenced above on Isaiah


In Old Testament we can find both a position of the King, and also a second position called the Master of the Palace, or Regent of the Palace (or House.) This second person was the King’s representative, or vicar, who spoke with full authority for the King ( or Pharaoh as is seen in Genesis 41:39-40.) His position is denoted by the fact that he carries the keys that belong to the king. He also has special clothes, a robe, and is a father figure as stated in Isaiah 22:21. See the link to the article about King Hezekiah for a detailed scripture study on this point.


I am confused by your first sentence. I take the meaning two ways, there is no original manuscripts in either Aramaic or Greek. Or there is none in Aramaic but there is in Greek…
Mark 14:36

And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will."Aramaic

As far as what language Jesus spoke we have examples that He did indeed speak Aramaic.
Mark 5
41 He took her by the hand and said to her, Talitha cum', which means,Little girl, get up!

John 1:
42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter).
These versus demonstrate the language that Jesus spoke no guess work.
You have it backwards. The primary language of the Jews at that time was Aramaic. They did business in Greek. No matter what language Jesus changed his name. Kinda ignored from those who want to down play that Peter was appointed leader.
This is what is shown in that passage
1.Peter had supernatural knowledge that God inspire in him
2. his name was changed which always indicated a change in stature. Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah.

thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

He changed the name of Isaac to Israel

10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

  1. Jesus gives the Keys of Heaven to him which symbolize authority to govern.


Could you further explain what this means to you. I don’t really see how the keys being metaphorical changes anything?

Like I already said earlier I agree Jesus didn’t physically hand St. Peter a set of keys. The keys were symbolic (which is a metaphorical expression) of authority.

OK. So what does this mean? Whatever type of authority you want to spin it to mean it still doesn’t change the fact that the authority resides in the keys and the keys were given to St. Peter?

OK no objections. I agree the key of David belongs to Jesus. However…

Could you please explain why Christ is powerless to allow someone else to open and close the doors for him?

Could you further explain why Christ would even mention giving St. Peter keys if it is of no importance in scripture?

Could you finally explain why Christ is not allowed to give His authority to anyone else?

God Bless


I agree, Peter got a set of keys, but Peter was not alone to get authority however. So where does that leave us? Jesus gave both power and authority to all of His disciples to command the unseen world in (Luke 9:1.)

All of the Disciples were commanded to exercise it in Matt 18:18 in terms of binding and loosening.

So, can we make a special case of the keys itself to be something strictly for Peter, meaning that somehow because Jesus used this metaphor only with him, it therefore should mean that Peter was now to be the head of the Church here on earth, while Jesus would be the head of the same Church but from heaven? OF COURSE YOU CAN MAKE THIS SPECIAL CASE! but it doesn’t mean that the scriptures actually teach it, or that we have a record of fellow-apostles acknowledging it and respecting it.

We have no such divine record anywhere to be found MT. Even the Apostle Paul who came later, tells us that His authority and doctrine came from Christ, see 2nd. Cor. 10:8;

Also,… In Galatians 1:1 Paul shows something interesting here , He writes: “Paul an apostle not from MEN, nor THROUGH man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…” His point was simple, Paul didn’t get his orders from any other apostle including Peter. He got them directly from Jesus Christ.


You are working too hard here Hope. I did not say there is no record of Jesus speaking in Aramaic. I was specifically calling the Matthew 16 passage into question. But my point stands that Greek was the fluent language and since we simply do not know what language Jesus used in this passage, I go with the popular and fluent language.

Jesus would never tell His Church that He was going to build it upon a man, whether it be Peter or Paul or any man.
This line of thought is inconsistent with everything we read about Christ our foundation, not to mention the dilemma it causes with a host of scripture.


To the first question: Christ is not powerless to allow someone else to open and close doors. He has preeminence because He has supremacy over His creation. This authority seems to be reserved strictly for Him, just as is the Father’s preeminence to know who will sit at His right and left.

To the second question: I never tried to imply it was not important. I, again, am persuaded that Peter’s answer is locked up in Jesus’ question, who do YOU say I am… it was a learning curve in the moment.
The fact of the matter is, everyone who is in Christ, came to the same conclusions as Peter. Therefore, we too may have the keys to the kingdom of God. For it is the Father’s good pleasure to give us the kingdom.

To the third question: The second question tells my answer. God is no respecter of persons. His authority can be given to anyone who seeks His heart. If you get His heart, you may also get His hands.


The Church recognizes only genuine and freely given conversions. So, the Church rules by invitation not by force. At the end of time God will hold accountable those who disobeyed.

Matthew 10:1
“Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.”

Luke 10:17-19
“The seventy (-two) returned rejoicing, and said, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name.’ Jesus said, ‘I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky. Behold, I have given you the power ‘to tread upon serpents’ and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you.”

2 Corinthians 13:10
“I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.”

Titus 2:15
“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”

Matthew 18:17
“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.”

Notice that Jesus does not say that the final authority is a book, but rather a Church, which by necessity had to be a visible Church in order to be identified so that we could listen to it and obey its decisions.

John 17:20-21
“I [Jesus] pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Therefore, the Church that Jesus established has a visible unity, unlike the false claim to an invisible unity that Protestants claim to have, and this unity is a visible sign, or a visible apologetic, pointing to the world that Jesus is the Messiah.

This Church and her Apostolic Tradition working along with Sacred Scriptures would be the final authority, “the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy 3:15, in determining what God had revealed. It is by the authority of the Church that Christ founded, being guided by the Holy Spirit, that we know which books are truly the inspired Word of God and which are not, therefore we can know with infallible certainty which books belong in the Bible and which do not. This Church, whose teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit, shows us the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”


Once again I agree. I already explained this way up there. :point_up:

And a math book doesn’t teach you that 2+2=4 if your not willing to accept the answer.

If you don’t want to say this verse shows us that Jesus singled out St. Peter that’s fine. God gave us free will and if we don’t want to accept it that is our choice. However, if you want to be honest with yourself and Christ you need to think long and hard what Jesus intended with Matthew 16. To simply say the things you don’t agree with are not important or just “symbolic” in scripture is to read with blinders on.

Just because you refuse to see it isn’t evidence that it’s not there. You keep claiming you are only here to defend your faith against us. However, the only defense I keep seeing is you telling me I’m wrong, with no scriptural basis for telling me this.

We’ve already discussed this, in verse 18 St. Paul tells us…Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

Why did he do this? Because people thought he was lying since he did not have St. Peter’s blessing.

God Bless


Just curious. If Jesus didn’t build His Church upon men (Peter, the Apostles and all of the Martyrs) how exactly was it built?

God Bless


If the authority was reserved strictly for Him, how did fallible men write the Bible?

So a revelation from God is ones own learning curve and not really something given to you by God? :thinking:

I would argue this exact line of thinking is the root of all evil and the problem we have in the world today. Everyone think8ng they have the authority to do as they please.

And my response would be the same as the second. Many claim to have His heart and His hand, but in the end it is just a claim.

God Bless


You said

that When you say Jesus spoke in Aramaic, you are guessing. As I am when I insist He was speaking Greek. However, the Greek language was the only popular language in His day and the Aramaic was secondary.

It is not a guess. We know Jesus spoke Aramaic. Aramaic would have been His first language one he would have spoken to his close companions. Jesus might have spoken Greek but The common language would have been Aramaic. Spoken languages in the time of Jesus.


Have you considered hiring a sky writer? That way more people can see your response.


Okay. Now, I see the problem. We have a different understanding of the meaning of the keys. You believe, if I understand you correctly, that they all get the keys.

So, I created the following. I hope you do not mind.

How to explain the meaning of the Keys in Matthew 16.
The Key - Lock metaphor that Jesus used as Caesarea Philippi

Some Protestants will say that they all get the symbolic “Key”
that Jesus gave to Peter. However, if that is what Jesus had intended then He used a metaphor that does not fit. This is explained below.

They will also contend that the Key does not represent authority over others as vicar, or representative, of Christ. Instead they will contend something like

“that Jesus gave Peter the keys to unlock the divine knowledge of God’s ways”

Now, if Jesus had intended what Protestants propose above it would have been much more fitting for Him to have used the metaphor of a “looking glass” rather than a “Key.” There would be nothing out of place if Jesus had wanted to give everyone a looking glass.

Some of the text below might seem slow at first, but if one works logically and methodically, step-by-step, the meaning will be clear to all.

So, we have to ask, “What is the meaning of the Keys ?”

A key has no meaning or purpose without a lock. So, we must also ask,
“What is the meaning and purpose of a lock ?”

A lock secures the contents of the thing being locked so that only the person who has the unique key designed for that lock can have access. Now, if everybody’s key fit that lock, then it would serve no purpose. It would keep no one out. A lock only has value because only one key works. Only one particular key (or set of duplicate keys,) out of the whole range of different possibilities of possible keys, can work.

Similarly, if everyone had that unique key designed for that lock then the lock would also have no meaning and serve no purpose.

However, every word that Jesus spoke had meaning and purpose.

Therefore, for the metaphor of the key that Jesus spoke of implies the power it yields is unique to one individual.

Notice that Jesus does not break or destroy the lock, so that everyone has access. Rather Jesus gives to Peter singularly the Key.

That is why Jesus switched from second person plural, “You” in Matthew 16:15, to second person singular in Matthew chapter 16 verses 17, 18, and 19.

The symbol below was written on Peter’s grave in Rome. The early Christians used this symbol to show the close connection between Jesus Christ, Peter, and the Keys Jesus gave to Peter.


It sounds like you’ve worked real hard here JohnR77.

You haven’t said anything here I can dispute or would want to. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of God, and Jesus said that Peter would bind and loose. I agree. The binding and loosening is the end result of one who possesses the keys to the kingdom of God.

The fact that the word keys here is almost non-existent in the rest of the N.T. says something. It is a metaphor that should not be enshrined as the CC has done.

Jesus has the keys of hell and death, is the only other place in the N.T. where the word comes up. the Pharisees possessed the “key of knowledge” in Luke. 11:52.
But to impose beyond these themes the idea that Peter was singled out of his apostleship to become a Bishop and head over all the Church here on earth, while Jesus is head over all the Church in heaven, … is an idea not found in Mt. 16 or any other place.

Was Peter an Apostle, among 11 others? yes he was… did he have spiritual authority over others? yes he did. Was he a teacher / evangelist / pastor, etc. probably all the above,

Did the other 11 Apostles, along with the inner circle of followers, recognize and agree with Peter as supreme Shepherd over them? There is not even one shred of evidence to this within the divine record of scripture, not even in Peter’s writings.

Peter said, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker of the glory that is going to be revealed. v2 Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight … v4 and when the chief Shepherd appears …”

Peter knew there was a chain of command that included a set of elders who were eye witnesses to Christ suffering. In this case, and by context, Peter was referring to his fellow apostles. But nowhere in his writings does he even attempt to pull rank. Only the opposite is true.


The Catholic Church has many writings that refer to it being the case, from the Apostles and their followers, throughout the entire history of the Church. That passage and many others throughout the Bible, also acknowledge the Primacy of St. Peter and the Authority that was given to the Church.

The problem is that Non-Catholics refuse to admit that any of those records are valid, or that the Bible passages mean what the Church says they mean, because it would turn their entire belief system on its head. They would have to look at themselves, and their own beliefs, in light of that being true. I can understand why someone would resist doing that, from a purely human perspective, but we’re not just talking about a simple matter of not wanting to admit that what we believe might in fact be wrong. We’re talking about the salvation of our souls.

How can anyone ever be sure that they are already “saved”, if they’re not subjecting themselves to the Authority of the Catholic Church, if that Authority was really given to Her by Jesus? That’s the real question that we all need to ask ourselves. Not only Non-Catholics, but many “cafeteria Catholics” who also have the same dilemma when they start to pick & choose between the Doctrines they “want” to believe, and those they want to ignore.

Jesus said that He hates the “lukewarm” and will vomit them out of His mouth. That’s a pretty scary thought. In the end, Jesus wants us all to love Him enough to follow Him, wherever He might want to lead us. We can only hope and pray that we make the right choice, and follow Him to the ends of the earth if that’s what He asks us to do.


St. Peter isn’t just referring to his fellow apostles here. He is is writing this letter to the fellow elders of all of the local Churches.

This letter was written probably 35 years after the Resurrection. Are you seriously going to claim there was only 11 other Churches by then? Of which St. Paul already wrote letters to half of them?

You just need to believe he was only speaking to the other Apostles so you can ignore the fact that the Apostles handed on their authority to the leaders who were to hand on that authority to other faithful men.

2 Timothy 2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

St. Peter is speaking to all of the elders appointed by them. Not just the Apostles but the successors of the Apostles.

Which brings up the question since you admit that St. Peter knew there was a chain of command (from the Bible), how come you believe we no longer need this chain of command? From the Bible please.

God Bless


I’ve served in the military. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, but under him are others, & a chain of command follows.

This is how I see the relationship of Christ & the Church. Christ is the Head, but His representative until He returns is the Pope, followed by bishops, priests, & deacons, & the laity.

Many Protestant churches mimic this model by having a pastor with bishops/deacons/elders.


I will make new tangent thread on the Papacy and the Keys.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit