St. Peter And The Fight For The Keys

[dairygirl4u2c]

lousiveille didn't say whether it's a meritorious argumetn necessasirly granted, but i think that he'd entertain it the way he did shows he thought it at least plausible.
neither of us really knows though.

if you dn't have the keys and the "bind and lose" argument, the catholic interpretation falls to pieces. well, it's still debatable.... but you lose pretty much your whole basis in the bible the catholic encyclopedia is the one taking your keys and bind and lose interpreatio away from you,,,, not just me. since you didn't respond to the keys argument that the catholic encyclopedia stated,,, i'll take that as an admission on your part that it contradicts yours.

your whole biblical argument from the bible, hinges on the keys verse. if you don't have it, what do you have? everything else in the bible is too debatable without that one verse that you put so much weight on. your whole argument rises and falls on it, so it's important you defend it well.

the other points you now are bringing up are really beside the point of your keys verse, which i'm still waiting for your to address, but i'll move on to your other issues.

aside from the keys verse,,,, all you have is that peter was called rock, and took a lead role. notice, abraham was called father of many nations,b ut wasn't infallble. other apostles took lead positions, james at the counsel of jeruselum etc. that peter didn't take a bigger role i think speaks louder than debates about what keys mean or that he took a lead role. he simply acted like an elder in a church would act from a morre protestant perspective,,, or like the head would act from an orthodox. not how someone who's infallible would act. these are practical examples of how the church would be set up based on the bible,,,, based on the same verses you seem to think proves your position.

-timothy was told to take the truth, guard it, and pass it on. this didn't involve peter. to argue it does, is totally reading into it. granted, it doens't rule out peter... but there's no situations in the bible where peter is referred to as the end of discussion... and we should simply take the verse for what it says. christianity is about taking the truth, guarding it, and passing it on. there's an argument to be made about how the church should be set up, orthodox, protestant with elders etc.... but to add an infallible head is starting to get pretty far out there from what the bible alone says.

-jesus said thsoe who say "lord lord" but do not follow him are not christians. that some are bad only means they are wrong to think they're doing right. not that non-catholics are wrong. saying that we need the pope to say murder is wrong for example,,, or whatever,,, is ridiculous. truth can be known without the pope. it could be argued whether it's better to have a pope, or whether that's what God intended.... but the point is that an alterantive to the CC system of truth is totally plausible. jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against hte church, he said the sprit of truth would come, he said the truth will set you free, he said the church is the pillar of truth.... to say that we can't know that murder is wrong, or that Jesus is lord, without the pope, is silly.

i'm citing verses. i really don't know how you think what i'm saying is wrong necessarily. i suppose it's a matter of an inherent disagreement, as to whether it's right or wrong to believe the pope is infalible,,,, that's understandable. but i simply cannot see how you think it's so obviously true biblically that the pope is infallible and that you can't concede the plausibility in other arguments.

(so it seems at this point, that the early church should be gotten into. like, if the eucharist is what cahtolics say,,, you think you'd see it in the church. if the eope is what cahtolics say, you think you'd see it in the church. but for some reason, you seem intent to avoid the early church. if it's true,, you think it's be at least a little clearer than it is in the early church, that that pope is infallible)

Edited September 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[eagle_eye222001]

You didn't cite any verses and explicitly show me why.

I have laid out [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=84554&st=20"]my argument in another thread[/url] where you did not respond with a counter-argument that was backed up with anything.

I am not going to respond to your attacks when you have failed to prove and show adequately why my arguement fails. My argument makes sense, and is supported several other places in the Bible. Until you do the same there is nothing for me to go on.

Take my responses anyway you want to. I have laid out an argument backed with logical evidence. I suggest you do the same if you want anyone to consider your theory.

[dairygirl4u2c]

your arguments are illogical. you still have not addressed the catholic encylopedia for crying out loud. it's not just "my interpreation" that says your keys and binding verse isn't what you say... it's the catholic encylcopedia. how can you so surely say i'm wrong, when i'm backed up in having intereprtations that contradict yours by the catholic encyclopedia? talk about not taking anyone serious,,, your arguments are an incoherent joke.

you keep saying "you're wrong". but you don't say why what i'm citing as verses and interpretations are wrong, why specifically they are wrong. i'm saying why specifically the verses you cite and interperations you give, are not necessarily true.... unlike you,,, i'm not just saying "you're wrong" but i'm saying why you are. i'd suggest you do the same.
this debate isn't where you put your finger in your ears and go lalalalla and then put your head in the sand. this is a big boys and girls conversation, where if you want to be taken seriously, you address the issues at hand.

if you think i'm evading your responses, i'd like to know what you think i'm evading. i will specifically address anything you specifically want me to address. (don't just cursorarily say "prove me wrong" or "you're wrong, now prove that you're right"... tell me what you want me to address and i will)

Edited September 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[princessgianna]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1659962' date='Sep 20 2008, 01:15 AM']your arguments are illogical. you still have not addressed the catholic encylopedia for crying out loud. talk about not taking anyone serious,,, your arguments are an incoherent joke.

you keep saying "you're wrong". but you don't say why what i'm citing as verses and interpretations are wrong, why specifically they are wrong. i'm saying why specifically the verses you cite and interperations you give, are not necessarily true.... unlike you,,, i'm not just saying "you're wrong" but i'm saying why you are. i'd suggest you do the same.
this debate isn't where you put your finger in your ears and go lalalalla and then put your head in the sand. this is a big boys and girls conversation, where if you want to be taken seriously, you address the issues at hand.

if you think i'm evading your responses, i'd like to know what you think i'm evading. i will specifically address anything you specifically want me to address. (don't just cursorarily say "prove me wrong" or "you're wrong, now prove that you're right"... tell me what you want me to address and i will)[/quote]

i don't see the illogic of eagle eye! In fact i see the logic and it makes sense!
he makes sense and points out various passages in the bible to back it up! As for as the catholic encyclopedia thing again eagle eye wrote what what he read and showed how you might have faltered! or read it wrong!

but your arguments to why he is wrong does not give a better or (possibly) more accurate interpretation. i don't see why you are having to result to telling eagle eye that this is a big boys and girls discussion! he states his point and offers a various bible passages and references to a way bigger degree that you are (with all due of respect)! eagle eye is addressing the issues at hand! I fail to see your attacks at him!

Pax~

[eagle_eye222001]

I have stated my case as best as I can.

I stand by what I have said.

Perhaps [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm"]this article[/url] outlines it better.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also 'chair of peter' often means just the roman church, in the early church writings. nothing hinting at infallibility.
and, 'see of peter' was applied a lot to many churches back then.
and, the argument that the keys gives the popes infallibility or something akin to that without using that word, is not present in the early church.

[quote][quote]Eastern Orthodox view

Eastern Orthodox theologians agree that in Matthew 16:18, "rock" is a likely reference to Peter personally.[15] Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that "rock" simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as as well as Peter's confession of faith which has ultimate significance in establishing the Church.[16]

Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter has being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ's public ministry. There were no positions of power between the twelve, only "degrees of intimacy" or "degrees of honor." According to this view, Peter has a weak symbolic primacy or primacy of honor (in the sense of a purely honorary primacy). Other Orthodox scholars follow St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine[17] tradition in seeing Peter as the icon of the episcopate[18] with his title of protos (first) implying a certain level of authority over the other apostles. In this traditional Orthodox and Patristic view, the Church is the local Eucharistic assembly ("the diocese" in today's terminology) and the one who holds the "Chair of Peter" (St. Cyprian's expression) is the bishop. As a result, the primary of Peter is relevant to the relationship between the bishop and the presbyters, not between the bishop of Rome and the other bishops who are all equally holding Peter's chair.

As John Meyendorff explained: "A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saint, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter... There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and - in the Byzantine practice – by the “very pious emperors.” (The Primacy of Peter, p. 89)

Orthodox historians also maintain that Rome's authority in the early Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) empire was recognized only partially because of Rome's Petrine character, and that this factor was not the decisive issue. Moreover, the Orthodox view is that Rome's privileges were not understood as an absolute power (i.e. the difference between primacy and supremacy). In the East, there were numerous "apostolic sees", Jerusalem being considered the "mother of all churches," and the bishop of Antioch could also claim the title of successor to Peter, being that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. "Canon 28 of Chalcedon was for [the Byzantines] one of the essential texts for the organization of the Church: 'It is for right reasons that the accorded privileges to old Rome, for this city was the seat of the Emperor and the Senate.' ... The reason why the Roman Church had been accorded an incontestable precedence over all other apostolic churches was that its Petrine and Pauline 'apostolicity' was in fact added to the city's position as the capital city, and only the conjunction of both of these elements gave the Bishop of Rome the right to occupy the place of a primate in the Christian world with the consensus of all the churches."[19][/quote][/quote]

Edited April 27, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

this thread is also proof that my position is right

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=84554&pid=1849368&st=80&#entry1849368"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1849368[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's actually funny, in a sad way, reading these past threads, that eagle never conceded anything about the the 'keys' verse.
he doesn't have to stop being catholic. he can even say it's all clear as day otherwise without the keys verse.
but for some reason, he continues to evade that issue. intellectually dishonest? scared to face reality? difficulty comprehending? i have no idea, but he's got issues here, per 'the keys', for sure.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Revelations:
7"And to the angel of the church in (T)Philadelphia write: (U)He who is holy, (V)who is true, who has (W)the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:
8'(X)I know your [a]deeds Behold, I have put before you (Y)an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and (Z)have not denied My name.[/quote]

there's many ways one could take this verse.
i suppose it doesn't negate the catholic interpretation.
but, i think it does look more like it would negate it, if anything.
at any rate, the keys still refer to confession, according to the early church, according to the catholic encyclopeida. this argument hasn't really been addresed by anyone, how they deal with that fact.

Edited April 27, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

The following excerpt from Augustine illustrates the Fathers' interpretation of the keys. He writes:
[quote]"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church."

-The City of God, by St. Augustine[/quote]

[Guest]

Peace DairyGirl,
So who do you think the one true church is then ?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think per my beefs w the catholic church, i'd say the following:

papal infallibility = not super compelling of an argument, though formidable
eucharist = compelling and formidable, but still question remain
confession = compelling and formidable, and i honestly don't know how to address it other than to think maybe the catholic and orthodox churches are true, or-- that it's more in line with how prots interpet those 'lose sins' verses. i haven't done that exhaustive historical searches, though.


though, that said, as i saw in my archives, augustine doesn't cease to be a compelling figure for arguments from both catholics and prots:
[quote]Also here is Augustine's take on binding and loosing.
QUOTE
CHAP. 18.--THE KEYS GIVEN TO THE CHURCH.

17. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven;(1) that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.[/quote]

the tone and flow, at least, seems more in line with prot notions.

Edited August 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[tinytherese]

My, this thread is old. It's been insightful as to how many Protestants think. I've wondered how they interpreted the verse as well.

[Archaeology cat]

So in a discussion on FB the topic of Peter and the keys came up, with Isaiah 22 and Matt 16 being mentioned. The other person then threw out Rev 3:7 [quote]7"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:[/quote]

Now, I'm of the opinion that many prophesies are not either/or, but both/and, and so I could see Isaiah 22 as referring to both Peter (as shown in Matthew), and Jesus (in Revelation), but am curious as to what you guys think, or how to respond.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1939552' date='Aug 3 2009, 02:57 AM']i think per my beefs w the catholic church, i'd say the following:

papal infallibility = not super compelling of an argument, though formidable
eucharist = compelling and formidable, but still question remain
confession = compelling and formidable, and i honestly don't know how to address it other than to think maybe the catholic and orthodox churches are true, or-- that it's more in line with how prots interpet those 'lose sins' verses. i haven't done that exhaustive historical searches, though.[/quote]

Don't you ever feel... tired of this? Seems like you've been debating this stuff for as long as I've been on phatmass, which was when I was in RCIA over three years ago. What's keeping you from making up your mind already?