Difference between Catholic and Protestant.

[ScottA]

No – it ALL points to CHRIST.

Everything Jesus told Peter in Matt 16 points to JESUS.
Everything God promised Eliakim in Isa. 22 points to JESUS.
The Heavenly Jerusalem in Rev. 21 represents the CHURCH – which is the Brid of Christ.

OT Type and NT fulfillment is ALL about Him – even the types about others like Peter and Mary.
Jesus explained to the 2 men on the Road to Emmaus how this all pointed to Him. Early Church Fathers, like Augustine, in their wisdom wrote:
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament – and the Old is revealed in the New.”

It ALL points to Christ.

None of which dismisses the issue of correctly choosing the will and path of the Father as Jesus himself did and also set before the church.

My pointing out what Jesus did in setting Peter and the Father before the church fathers, does not point away from Christ, but to Him also. The point is that none of what you have referred to actually points to Peter (--even you say it all points to Christ). But then you yourself (as did the church fathers) still point to Peter which the scriptures do not point to, except that Jesus used him to identify what the scriptures do "not" point to.

Again, Jesus was making a point...by what means He would build His church, and by what means He would "not" build it. It was and is a fork in the road that we must all choose. Life or death. That which is born of flesh and blood, or that which is born of the spirit of God. Simple.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Well I don't equate Mary to Jezebel. And I think God honors Mary. But no I don't pray to Mary. Thanks for the input.

You're right. God doesn't. But naming a demon, Mary is disrespectful to the mother of Jesus who is not a demon. Did this fact really pass right over your head?

 

[BreadOfLife]

None of which dismisses the issue of correctly choosing the will and path of the Father as Jesus himself did and also set before the church.

My pointing out what Jesus did in setting Peter and the Father before the church fathers, does not point away from Christ, but to Him also. The point is that none of what you have referred to actually points to Peter (--even you say it all points to Christ). But then you yourself (as did the church fathers) still point to Peter which the scriptures do not point to, except that Jesus used him to identify what the scriptures do "not" point to.

Again, Jesus was making a point...by what means He would build His church, and by what means He would "not" build it. It was and is a fork in the road that we must all choose. Life or death. That which is born of flesh and blood, or that which is born of the spirit of God. Simple.

Jesus told Peter that it wasn’t PETER who came up with this confession on his own – but that he was inspired – even compelled to say this because the Father revealed it to him.

That’s ALL Jesus is conveying to him in verse 17. There’s not some “greater mystery” or “fork” that we all must take. Verse 17 stands on its own and we must take it at face value. You’ve read FAR too much into it that goes way beyond its meaning.

The real crux of the message that Jesus was trying to convey to him is in verses 18 and 19.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

You are forced to ignore what has always been believed about a woman giving birth to a man child. Oh, it's Isreal! Oh, it's the Church! Yes, but anything but the obvious. I challenge you to find any qualified historian that agrees with this lunacy.

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics; by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics; and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.​

Is Catholicism Pagan?

​

Here is another link that you will ignore, but many won't.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church | David L. Gray
So everyone who has died and in heaven is dead? Interesting...

Catholics are not obligated to ask Mary to intercede. A devotion is not a doctrine.

As always taught by the CC. But ruling out subordinate mediators is a man made tradition you have dogmatized. The Bible doesn't do that.
II. God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer
So to you, Luke 2:33-35 is meaningless filler. Jesus loved and honored His mother. Aren't we called to be like Jesus as best as we can? Anything but that???
People want the truth, not your false history that's similar to SDA hate.

I like Revelation too, but I don't think Jesus would want anyone to fashion weapons from it, as you do.

The Book of Revelation shows us glimpses of the heavenly liturgy – Jesus Christ’s once and for all sacrifice eternally present in heaven. This is why the Church has always incorporated the elements that John saw in the heavenly liturgy into her earthly liturgy, for they are one and the same liturgical action of Jesus Christ our High Priest. Focusing on sin and evil in the Book of Revelation is a spiritual sickness.

Rev. 1:6, 20:6 – heaven’s identification of the priesthood of the faithful is the same as the Church’s identification on earth.

Rev. 1:10 – John witnesses the heavenly liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, which is a Catholic holy day of obligation for attending Mass on earth.

Rev. 1:12, 2:5 – there are lampstands or Menorahs in heaven. These have always been used in the Holy Mass of the Church on earth.

Rev. 1:13 – Jesus is clothed as High Priest. Our priests also clothe themselves as “alter Christuses” (other Christs) in offering His sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 – priests wear special vestments in heaven. Our priests also wear special vestments in celebrating the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 2:5,16,21; 3:3; 16:11 – there is a penitential rite in heaven which is also part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 2:17 – there is manna in heaven given to the faithful. This is the same as the Eucharistic manna given to the faithful at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 – there are priests (“presbyteroi”) in heaven. Priests offer sacrifice. Our earthly priests participate with the heavenly priests in offering Jesus’ eternal sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:8 – heaven’s liturgical chant “Holy, Holy, Holy” is the same that is used in the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12, 18:1-8 – the various antiphonal chants in the heavenly liturgy are similar to those used at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:1 – there is a book or scroll of God’s word in heaven. This is reflected in the Liturgy of the Word at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:6 and throughout – heaven’s description of Jesus as the “Lamb” is the same as the description of Jesus as the Lamb of God in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 – heaven’s emphasis on the intercession of the saints is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 – there is incense in heaven which has always been part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4 – heaven’s concluding liturgical prayer “Amen” is the same as is used at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 6:9 – the martyrs who are seen under the heavenly altar is similar to the Church’s tradition of keeping relics of saints under the earthly altars.

Rev. 7:3, 14:1, 22:4 – there is the sign of the cross (“tau”) in heaven. This sign is used during the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 7:9; 14:6 – the catholicity or universality of heaven as God’s family is the essence of the Catholic faith on earth.

Rev. 8:1 – the silent contemplation in heaven is similar to our silent contemplation at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 – there is an altar in heaven. But no altar is needed unless a sacrifice is being offered in heaven. This is the same sacrifice that is offered on the altars used in the Holy Masses on earth.

Rev. 11:12 – the phrase “come up here” is similar to the priest’s charge to “lift up your hearts” at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 12:1-6, 13-17 – heaven’s emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 12:7 – heaven’s emphasis on the Archangel Michael’s intercession is the same as the concluding prayers at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 14:4 – there are consecrated celibates in heaven, as there are with our Catholic priests and religious on earth.

Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4,8,10,12,17; 21:9 – there are chalices (or bowls) in the heavenly liturgy. This is like the chalices used to offer Christ’s sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 15:3-4 – there is the recitation of the “Gloria” in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 15:5 – there is a tent or tabernacle in heaven. Tabernacles are used to store the Eucharist at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 17, 19:9 – the consummation of the Lamb at heaven’s marriage supper is the same as the Lamb’s supper in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 19:1,3,4,6 – there is the recitation of the “Alleluia” in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic

Blood from childbirth? Oy vey!

 

[ScottA]

Jesus told Peter that it wasn’t PETER who came up with this confession on his own – but that he was inspired – even compelled to say this because the Father revealed it to him.

That’s ALL Jesus is conveying to him in verse 17. There’s not some “greater mystery” or “fork” that we all must take. Verse 17 stands on its own and we must take it at face value. You’ve read FAR too much into it that goes way beyond its meaning.

The real crux of the message that Jesus was trying to convey to him is in verses 18 and 19.

You are only focusing on what you want to see because of what you have always believed. But you cannot [actually] deny that the context parameters span from "flesh and blood" ("not") to the "Father" (spirit). If you don't want to see that as a fork in the path, then at least see that there is both. That would be a start. Then...you should be asking yourself, "Which is greater, and therefore which one was Jesus actually referring to" (...which was His preface to and condition of verses 18 and 19). What should then be seen, is that Jesus first stated the terms and means, then the subject matter...and just as He used a comparison to contrast what was and was [not] to be, He also spoke in parable, which was His way.

 

[BreadOfLife]

None of which dismisses the issue of correctly choosing the will and path of the Father as Jesus himself did and also set before the church.

My pointing out what Jesus did in setting Peter and the Father before the church fathers, does not point away from Christ, but to Him also. The point is that none of what you have referred to actually points to Peter (--even you say it all points to Christ). But then you yourself (as did the church fathers) still point to Peter which the scriptures do not point to, except that Jesus used him to identify what the scriptures do "not" point to.

Again, Jesus was making a point...by what means He would build His church, and by what means He would "not" build it. It was and is a fork in the road that we must all choose. Life or death. That which is born of flesh and blood, or that which is born of the spirit of God. Simple.

I beg to differ.

His name was SIMON barJonah - and Jesus changed his name to "Peter" (Kepha), which means "Rock" and gave Him unprecedended Authority.
Just as Abraham's rols as the "Rock" in Isaiah 51:1-2 points to Yaweh - Peter's rols as the "Rock in Matt. 16:18-10 points to Christ.

What WE differ on is the intention of Jesus here - not WHAT He said.

 

[Taken]

Is this topical, absolutely.
"Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have been with a loose girl."
The priest asks, "Is that you, little Joey Pagano?"
"Yes, Father, it is."
"And who was the girl you were with?"
"I can't tell you, Father. I don't want to ruin her reputation."
"Well, Joey, I'm sure to find out her name sooner or later so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?"
"I cannot say."
"Was it Teresa Mazzarelli?"
"I'll never tell."
"Was it Nina Capelli?"
"I'm sorry, but I cannot name her."
"Was it Cathy Piriano?"
"My lips are sealed."
"Was it Rosa DiAngelo, then?"
"Please, Father! I cannot tell you."
The priest sighs in frustration. "You're very tight lipped, and I admire that. But you've sinned and have to atone. You cannot be an altar boy now for 4 months. Now you go and behave yourself."
Joey walks back to his pew, and his friend Franco slides over and whispers, "What'd you get?"
"Four months vacation and five good leads...

 

[ScottA]

I beg to differ.

His name was SIMON barJonah - and Jesus changed his name to "Peter" (Kepha), which means "Rock" and gave Him unprecedended Authority.
Just as Abraham's rols as the "Rock" in Isaiah 51:1-2 points to Yaweh - Peter's rols as the "Rock in Matt. 16:18-10 points to Christ.

What WE differ on is the intention of Jesus here - not WHAT He said.

That only makes Peter the object of Jesus' parable explanation of how His church is and is "not" built.

In the given context spanning from "flesh and blood" to the "Father", it is expected of us that we should know that the words are "spiritually discerned." In which case, there is only one correct directive given, and one that is "not."

 

[Philip James]

Is this topical, absolutely.
"Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have been with a loose girl."
The priest asks, "Is that you, little Joey Pagano?"
"Yes, Father, it is."
"And who was the girl you were with?"
"I can't tell you, Father. I don't want to ruin her reputation."
"Well, Joey, I'm sure to find out her name sooner or later so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?"
"I cannot say."
"Was it Teresa Mazzarelli?"
"I'll never tell."
"Was it Nina Capelli?"
"I'm sorry, but I cannot name her."
"Was it Cathy Piriano?"
"My lips are sealed."
"Was it Rosa DiAngelo, then?"
"Please, Father! I cannot tell you."
The priest sighs in frustration. "You're very tight lipped, and I admire that. But you've sinned and have to atone. You cannot be an altar boy now for 4 months. Now you go and behave yourself."
Joey walks back to his pew, and his friend Franco slides over and whispers, "What'd you get?"
"Four months vacation and five good leads...

Reported for offensive content

 

[Brakelite]

Then demonstrate your "opinion" is objective. Your fake quote can't be found on line. It's standard SDA methodology to make a fake quote appear is if it is dogmatic. Or a pope addressing the faithful in the 1920's is addressing the same faithful in 2022. It doesn't work that way.
A fake quote. Pope Pius IX is a man of another century. He served as pope from 1846 to 1878, the longest and one of the most difficult pontificates in history.

11. Catholicism rejects the "State Church," which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.

12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against universal equality and Christian universalism (i.e., Catholicism).​

13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars which in turn led to the "Enlightenment," in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.​

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/misc/a150-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-by-dave-armstrong/

Pius XI issued numerous encyclicals, including Quadragesimo anno on the 40th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII 's groundbreaking social encyclical Rerum novarum, highlighting the capitalistic greed of international finance, the dangers of socialism / communism, and social justice issues, and Quas primas, establishing the feast of Christ the King in response to anti-clericalism.


"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.

The Pope Says he is God on earth!!! (scroll up to post #251) Catholics must be exterminated!

It is error to claim that ...
"In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship". Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855
Also see syllabus of errors, 77

Syllabus of errors.24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.

I suppose it would be too much to hope for any affirmation that indeed, the quote was legitimate. Not an exact word for word quote, but as originally presented, a paraphrase saying... This is what Pius said. And not only said, but wrote as part of a supplementary addition to his encyclical. The truth is that your bluster and claims aside, the Catholic Church does not believe in religious liberty, except for itself in a protestant society. It will take away religious liberty in a Catholic society. And by force of necessary. And history reveals in blood the many times this happened. And many protestant rulers were no better. However, the prevailing fear of Catholic domination in society, even as late as the 20th century in America, was very real, and for good reason. The Christian pilgrims came to America because they desired freedom. No-one could tell them how to worship. Unfortunately, it took a while for even then to recognize that what they demanded for themselves, they ought to extend to others. Roger Williams, at great cost to himself, was finally the catalyst for true religious liberty in America. But oh how the Vatican hates that... Taken advantage of it yes. But having ultimate control over how the constitution is understood and interpreted today by a Catholic majority on the supreme court must be inviting permanent smiles of satisfaction on the faces of Catholic bosses in Rome. And disbelief as to how things have so much turned to their favor after only a couple hundred years.

 

[Illuminator]

None of which dismisses the issue of correctly choosing the will and path of the Father as Jesus himself did and also set before the church.

My pointing out what Jesus did in setting Peter and the Father before the church fathers, does not point away from Christ, but to Him also. The point is that none of what you have referred to actually points to Peter (--even you say it all points to Christ). But then you yourself (as did the church fathers) still point to Peter which the scriptures do not point to, except that Jesus used him to identify what the scriptures do "not" point to.

Again, Jesus was making a point...by what means He would build His church, and by what means He would "not" build it. It was and is a fork in the road that we must all choose. Life or death. That which is born of flesh and blood, or that which is born of the spirit of God. Simple.

Handing over the ‘keys of the kingdom’ — conferring an extraordinary degree of authority — refers back to Isaiah 22.

In two key passages of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus leaves his Church with two great gifts. The first (Matthew 16:19) is addressed to St. 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.
​

The second (Matthew 18:1) is addressed to his disciples:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

The counter-argument made by many Protestant commentators, exegetes and apologists is that receiving the keys of the kingdom is identical to binding and loosing. Hence, when Jesus also gives the latter power to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, they conclude that they have all received the keys of the kingdom like Peter has. But this doesn’t follow at all. The Greek in Matthew 16:19 has a semi-colon after what is rendered in the RSV as: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, it’s a strong break or pause in the text. Then it has the word “and” (καὶ/ kai), and then Jesus talks about Peter receiving the power to bind and loose.

This means that it is two different things, rather than the second clause of the verse being the definition or complete description of the first. It’s still notable that Peter is given this power singularly and by name, whereas the disciples receive it only as a collective. Everything in the Bible means something. Details are not insignificant.

It’s exactly like the pope and bishops in the Catholic Church. All priests and bishops can forgive sins and grant absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). So can the pope.

Receiving the “keys of the kingdom” refers back to Isaiah 22. To make a long story short, even many Protestant commentators agree that this was an extraordinary degree of authority. Words used to describe it include vizier, master of the house, chamberlain, steward, curator, guardian, manager, superintendent, one who regulates the “administration” of the “house,” and who has “legislative authority in the church,” “chief teacher of the church,” one who is “over” the Church, who has full authority, administrative authority, etc.

Some things are so obvious that they can be overlooked. The one relevant text simply doesn’t assert that that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the disciples. In context, Jesus is undeniably addressing Peter alone: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” (Matthew 16:17). Then he says: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church ...” (Matthew 16:18). Then, still addressing Peter alone, he says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ...” (Matthew 16:19). After four verses of exclusive attention to Peter, the narrative states: “Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ” (Matthew 16:20) and “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples ...” (Matthew 16:21).

Now, if the keys were intended to be given to all the disciples, it’s quite reasonable to assume that the text would surely have noted that and made it undeniable too. I think Jesus would have said something like, “I will give all of you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” or “I will give you and your fellow disciples the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” But it says no such thing. Only Peter receives them. Jesus uses the phrase (in RSV) “I will give you” only two other times. Both times he was addressing a crowd: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28); “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict” (Luke 21:15). Peter is the only individual recipient of something Jesus gives, accompanied by the phrase, “I will give you.”

If we search the phrase “I have given you” in the RSV, we find that it occurs twice (Jesus saying it both times). One is directed toward the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1, 17): “Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you” (Luke 10:19).

The other is to the 12 disciples, directing them to wash each other’s feet as he had done to them: “For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15).

Likewise, the similar phrase, “To you it has been given” is directed by Jesus to the 12 disciples (Matthew 13:10; Luke 8:9): “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:11; cf. Luke 8:10). Once again, we see that these sorts of phrases are either applied to the disciples or larger crowds, or (once) to Peter alone, when he received the keys of the kingdom.

It’s the same dynamic with Jesus and prayer. Either the Bible says that he went off and prayed (often on a mountain: Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46; Luke 6:12; 9:28), without further detail, or prayed for his disciples (and also all his followers), that they would be united (John 17:9, 21: “I am praying for ... those whom thou hast given me ... that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee”). As far as I have been able to determine, there is only one time (Luke 22:31-32) where the Bible records him praying for one person by name:

Simon, Simon (i.e., Peter), behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
​

source

 

[Brakelite]

Handing over the ‘keys of the kingdom’ — conferring an extraordinary degree of authority — refers back to Isaiah 22.

In two key passages of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus leaves his Church with two great gifts. The first (Matthew 16:19) is addressed to St. 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.
​

The second (Matthew 18:1) is addressed to his disciples:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

The counter-argument made by many Protestant commentators, exegetes and apologists is that receiving the keys of the kingdom is identical to binding and loosing. Hence, when Jesus also gives the latter power to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, they conclude that they have all received the keys of the kingdom like Peter has. But this doesn’t follow at all. The Greek in Matthew 16:19 has a semi-colon after what is rendered in the RSV as: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, it’s a strong break or pause in the text. Then it has the word “and” (καὶ/ kai), and then Jesus talks about Peter receiving the power to bind and loose.

This means that it is two different things, rather than the second clause of the verse being the definition or complete description of the first. It’s still notable that Peter is given this power singularly and by name, whereas the disciples receive it only as a collective. Everything in the Bible means something. Details are not insignificant.

It’s exactly like the pope and bishops in the Catholic Church. All priests and bishops can forgive sins and grant absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). So can the pope.

Receiving the “keys of the kingdom” refers back to Isaiah 22. To make a long story short, even many Protestant commentators agree that this was an extraordinary degree of authority. Words used to describe it include vizier, master of the house, chamberlain, steward, curator, guardian, manager, superintendent, one who regulates the “administration” of the “house,” and who has “legislative authority in the church,” “chief teacher of the church,” one who is “over” the Church, who has full authority, administrative authority, etc.

Some things are so obvious that they can be overlooked. The one relevant text simply doesn’t assert that that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the disciples. In context, Jesus is undeniably addressing Peter alone: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” (Matthew 16:17). Then he says: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church ...” (Matthew 16:18). Then, still addressing Peter alone, he says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ...” (Matthew 16:19). After four verses of exclusive attention to Peter, the narrative states: “Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ” (Matthew 16:20) and “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples ...” (Matthew 16:21).

Now, if the keys were intended to be given to all the disciples, it’s quite reasonable to assume that the text would surely have noted that and made it undeniable too. I think Jesus would have said something like, “I will give all of you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” or “I will give you and your fellow disciples the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” But it says no such thing. Only Peter receives them. Jesus uses the phrase (in RSV) “I will give you” only two other times. Both times he was addressing a crowd: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28); “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict” (Luke 21:15). Peter is the only individual recipient of something Jesus gives, accompanied by the phrase, “I will give you.”

If we search the phrase “I have given you” in the RSV, we find that it occurs twice (Jesus saying it both times). One is directed toward the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1, 17): “Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you” (Luke 10:19).

The other is to the 12 disciples, directing them to wash each other’s feet as he had done to them: “For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15).

Likewise, the similar phrase, “To you it has been given” is directed by Jesus to the 12 disciples (Matthew 13:10; Luke 8:9): “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:11; cf. Luke 8:10). Once again, we see that these sorts of phrases are either applied to the disciples or larger crowds, or (once) to Peter alone, when he received the keys of the kingdom.

It’s the same dynamic with Jesus and prayer. Either the Bible says that he went off and prayed (often on a mountain: Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46; Luke 6:12; 9:28), without further detail, or prayed for his disciples (and also all his followers), that they would be united (John 17:9, 21: “I am praying for ... those whom thou hast given me ... that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee”). As far as I have been able to determine, there is only one time (Luke 22:31-32) where the Bible records him praying for one person by name:

Simon, Simon (i.e., Peter), behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
​

source

Whatever the meaning and implications of the keys and binding/loosing, no-one disagrees that these were given to the apostles. The questions that arise however are...

• what constituted the church in later centuries
• What peoples comprised that church
• And were they worthy of the responsibilities and were they accountable for how those gifts were administered.

Were there sections of the church unworthy of those gifts and thus were withdrawn by the holy Spirit, and were they continued to be administered by churches found to be more faithful to their calling and more committed and true to their Creator and His redemptive processes?

 

[BreadOfLife]

That only makes Peter the object of Jesus' parable explanation of how His church is and is "not" built.

In the given context spanning from "flesh and blood" to the "Father", it is expected of us that we should know that the words are "spiritually discerned." In which case, there is only one correct directive given, and one that is "not."

Once again - I think you're reading too much into verse 17 - when the meat pof the passage is oin the following 2 verses (18 & 19).

In verse 17, Jesus us merely informing Simon WHERE he got the idea that Jesus is the Messiah. I'm not downplaying the importance of this because it means that Simon's heart was open to the voice and inspiration of God.
However - I also recognize that the emphasis of what Jesus is saying comes out in verses 18 & 19.

 

[ScottA]

Handing over the ‘keys of the kingdom’ — conferring an extraordinary degree of authority — refers back to Isaiah 22.

In two key passages of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus leaves his Church with two great gifts. The first (Matthew 16:19) is addressed to St. 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.
​

The second (Matthew 18:1) is addressed to his disciples:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

The counter-argument made by many Protestant commentators, exegetes and apologists is that receiving the keys of the kingdom is identical to binding and loosing. Hence, when Jesus also gives the latter power to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, they conclude that they have all received the keys of the kingdom like Peter has. But this doesn’t follow at all. The Greek in Matthew 16:19 has a semi-colon after what is rendered in the RSV as: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” In other words, it’s a strong break or pause in the text. Then it has the word “and” (καὶ/ kai), and then Jesus talks about Peter receiving the power to bind and loose.

This means that it is two different things, rather than the second clause of the verse being the definition or complete description of the first. It’s still notable that Peter is given this power singularly and by name, whereas the disciples receive it only as a collective. Everything in the Bible means something. Details are not insignificant.

It’s exactly like the pope and bishops in the Catholic Church. All priests and bishops can forgive sins and grant absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). So can the pope.

Receiving the “keys of the kingdom” refers back to Isaiah 22. To make a long story short, even many Protestant commentators agree that this was an extraordinary degree of authority. Words used to describe it include vizier, master of the house, chamberlain, steward, curator, guardian, manager, superintendent, one who regulates the “administration” of the “house,” and who has “legislative authority in the church,” “chief teacher of the church,” one who is “over” the Church, who has full authority, administrative authority, etc.

Some things are so obvious that they can be overlooked. The one relevant text simply doesn’t assert that that the keys of the kingdom were given to all the disciples. In context, Jesus is undeniably addressing Peter alone: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” (Matthew 16:17). Then he says: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church ...” (Matthew 16:18). Then, still addressing Peter alone, he says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ...” (Matthew 16:19). After four verses of exclusive attention to Peter, the narrative states: “Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ” (Matthew 16:20) and “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples ...” (Matthew 16:21).

Now, if the keys were intended to be given to all the disciples, it’s quite reasonable to assume that the text would surely have noted that and made it undeniable too. I think Jesus would have said something like, “I will give all of you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” or “I will give you and your fellow disciples the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” But it says no such thing. Only Peter receives them. Jesus uses the phrase (in RSV) “I will give you” only two other times. Both times he was addressing a crowd: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28); “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict” (Luke 21:15). Peter is the only individual recipient of something Jesus gives, accompanied by the phrase, “I will give you.”

If we search the phrase “I have given you” in the RSV, we find that it occurs twice (Jesus saying it both times). One is directed toward the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1, 17): “Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you” (Luke 10:19).

The other is to the 12 disciples, directing them to wash each other’s feet as he had done to them: “For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15).

Likewise, the similar phrase, “To you it has been given” is directed by Jesus to the 12 disciples (Matthew 13:10; Luke 8:9): “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 13:11; cf. Luke 8:10). Once again, we see that these sorts of phrases are either applied to the disciples or larger crowds, or (once) to Peter alone, when he received the keys of the kingdom.

It’s the same dynamic with Jesus and prayer. Either the Bible says that he went off and prayed (often on a mountain: Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46; Luke 6:12; 9:28), without further detail, or prayed for his disciples (and also all his followers), that they would be united (John 17:9, 21: “I am praying for ... those whom thou hast given me ... that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee”). As far as I have been able to determine, there is only one time (Luke 22:31-32) where the Bible records him praying for one person by name:

Simon, Simon (i.e., Peter), behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
​

source

I don't disagree...but you are missing the point.

The keys to the kingdom were indeed given to Peter, only not in the way you or the church fathers have assumed. But rather, Jesus set the keys before Peter and the church, just as Moses had set life and death before Israel. The context for Israel was that of entering the promised land, but for the church the context was what the promised land foreshadowed, which is rather the rest of God--Heaven.

Thus, this is like Israel looking to the Temple of stone rather than the body of Christ and the spiritual implications. Jesus' discussion with Peter also had spiritual implications--to say the least, and He very clearly pointed out what was "not" to be. But what did the church fathers choose? They chose "flesh and blood" thinking that Jesus meant Peter was the way forward in the building of the church after Jesus [again] clearly pointed to the Father, which is to say the Spirit.

But does that mean the church of flesh and blood did no good service to God? Not at all--His word does not return void. But it does mean they left the keys of the kingdom lying at Peter's feet, to instead take up a worldly ministry. Even one we should all be thankful for.

 

[ScottA]

Once again - I think you're reading too much into verse 17 - when the meat pof the passage is oin the following 2 verses (18 & 19).

In verse 17, Jesus us merely informing Simon WHERE he got the idea that Jesus is the Messiah. I'm not downplaying the importance of this because it means that Simon's heart was open to the voice and inspiration of God.
However - I also recognize that the emphasis of what Jesus is saying comes out in verses 18 & 19.

By narrowing the context, you narrow the ministry. On the contrary, Jesus' presentation was not to narrow, but to expand. The rest is history.

Psalm 81:16
He would have fed them also with the finest of wheat; And with honey from the rock I would have satisfied you.”​

 

[BreadOfLife]

By narrowing the context, you narrow the ministry. On the contrary, Jesus' presentation was not to narrow, but to expand. The rest is history.

Psalm 81:16
He would have fed them also with the finest of wheat; And with honey from the rock I would have satisfied you.”​

It's not a case of my "narrowing" the context - but one of your inventing a context that doesn;t exist.

The crux of the passage is is verseses 16, 18-19.
Verse 17 tells us HOW Simon knew who Jesus was.

 

[ScottA]

It's not a case of my "narrowing" the context - but one of your inventing a context that doesn;t exist.

The crux of the passage is is verseses 16, 18-19.
Verse 17 tells us HOW Simon knew who Jesus was.

Believe what you will. I invented nothing, but quoted and pointed out all that is there.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Believe what you will. I invented nothing, but quoted and pointed out all that is there.

And you see something completely different than what thew Early Church saw - yet THEY were the ones who carried the Apostolic teachinhs and passed them down through the centuries.

YOUR opinion, on the other hand, came 2000 years later . . .

 

[ScottA]

And you see something completely different than what thew Early Church saw - yet THEY were the ones who carried the Apostolic teachinhs and passed them down through the centuries.

YOUR opinion, on the other hand, came 2000 years later . . .

No, but they believed a lie just as it was foretold. Yet now the fullness of time has come according to the sounding of the seventh angel. As I said, believe what you will...or come about and know that these things were to come and have come.

 

[quietthinker]

Difference between Cat holic and Protest ant.
The Cat holic takes 95 cats to the beach assuming everything is under control.
The protest ant gets on the freeway with his picket sign in front of an oncoming 40 wheeler.