- - - - - - - - - -
Somewhere between “Pope” and utter nonsense, is my view of name changes in the Bible. Jesus does not deliver the name change at this point, only makes reference to it. As if he said, “Peter, just like your name means Rock, upon the Rock of what you just said (You are the Son of God) I will build my kingdom.” Kind of like, “Amy (cute girl in the profile pic), Just like your name means beloved, so this smart, Phatcatholic guy loves you.”I disagree with you here and I think I can prove why, but I also don't think it's necessary. We may be going on a tangent in debating what or who "this rock" is. My understanding is that the identity of the rock confirms Peter's primacy among the apostles and the unique leadership position that Jesus gave to Peter. But, we're not debating that. Instead, we are debating whether or not Peter (and consequently, the popes who came after him) have the charism of infallibility. With this particular topic, the identity of the "rock" is not as important as the meaning of the keys. So, that's what I think we should be focusing on, as well as the other passages that I have utilized.
That said, I can basically skip down to this paragraph:
Peter certainly was foundational in starting the earliest church. The rock being the foundation makes more sense than a man who will speak infallible words and so will his sons (or relatives) I guess Popes don't have sons.First of all, I think it makes perfect sense that Jesus would grant Peter the charism of infallibility. It's like I said at the end of Part 2 of our debate: how good of a shepherd would Peter be if he was capable of leading the entire Church astray on a matter of faith or morals? If falsehood creeps into the Church, then the "father of lies" has won and the "gates of hell" have indeed prevailed against the Church, contrary to what Jesus Himself said about it.
It also makes sense that this charism would extend to Peter's successors [as a quick aside, note that the successors of St. Peter are not his sons or his relatives, but whoever is chosen to be the next bishop of Rome]. After all, what good is infallibility for the future of the Church if the charism dies with Peter? That just seems a little silly to me.
Finally, papal infallibility makes sense in light of the meaning of the keys, the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all Truth, Jesus' prayer for the faith of Peter, and the task given to Peter by Jesus to be the shepherd and guardian of the Church.
There is no mention of his descendants or his future words at all, only that what he just said, was true and was delivered to him by God the Father. His immediate future words were delivered to him by Satan.By way of reminder, I've already shown (in Part 3) how, regardless of one's interpretation of that incident, the doctrine of papal infallibility is not refuted.
Where in the rest of scripture is any other apostle or disciple told to subject themselves to Peter’s or anyone else’s infallible words, excepting that which is scripture itself?I think there are a few indications of the other apostles and disciples of Christ "subjecting themselves" to Peter, or acknowledging his authority. For example, Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (cf. Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter (as well as James and John) to preach to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:9). Peter settled the dispute at the Jerusalem Council ("after there had been much debate .... all the assembly fell silent", cf. Acts 15:7-12), and those who spoke after him simply reiterated and affirmed his position. The apostles often defer to Peter, or allow him to speak on their behalf (cf. Mt 15:12-15; Mk 8:29; 10:27-28; Lk 8:45; Jn 6:67-69; Acts 2:14). Those apostles who wrote Scripture also recognize Peter's primacy whenever they single him out from the rest (cf. Mk 1:36; 16:7; Lk 9:32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5), Matthew even calling Peter the first from among them (cf. Mt 10:2). I think that this shows an acknowledgement of Peter's unique authority by the apostles and disciples of Christ.
Yes, the key is referenced as that which opens knowledge (Luke 11:52). There is also a key that opens heaven (Matt. 16:19), a key that opens the bottomless pit (Revelation 9:1), a key that opens death and Hades (Rev. 1:18), a key of the house of David (Rev. 3:7).This is interesting what you wrote here about the different types of keys. I had never noticed that before. Perhaps this plurality explains why Jesus gave Peter keys (in the plural) instead of a single key.
Keys open things. In this case the key opens heaven and is given by Jesus and we know the only key that opens heaven is Christ; even so, only for those who have faith in Him. (You wouldn't say there is another key to open heaven, would you?)Mt 16:19 is not some metaphorical reference to the Gospel that Peter will preach. The keys symbolize the power of binding and loosing, as the second half of the verse explains. So, if we want to understand what it means that Peter now holds the keys, we need to investigate this power to bind and loose.
Peter has in his possession the keys to heaven, which is the truth that the Father revealed to him when he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
I concur, there was a handing off authority to Joseph by Pharaoh and to Haman by the King of Persia. And the Gospel is an amazing thing for Jesus to hand off to Peter for him to guard and take to the world, but I do not see how that is infallible future words by his sons to many generations after him.
From the testimony of a wide variety of Scripture scholars and commentaries (see #5 here), we find that the keys and the power to bind and loose is understood as "the symbol of authority," "the office of teaching the word," the "delegation of God's sovereignty," "the authority to teach in [Jesus'] name," "plenary authority," the authority "to be over the Church," to "establish rules" and to "put under the ban," "making halakhic pronouncements" and "regulating the affairs of the household," making "decisions based on the teachings of Jesus," "legislative authority in the church," and "appointment to full authority." They provide both an doctrinal and a disciplinary authority that is unparalleled.
Plus, like I pointed out before, Jesus is ratifying in heaven what Peter declares on earth. There is simply no room for error in such an arrangement.
That is all I can address for now, I know that I didn’t do it justice. My brain hurts, but I am happy. I look forward to more mental and spiritual stimulation.I apologize for taking so long to respond. Feel free to take your time with this.
Until then, I love this verse found in Psalm 103. "The Lord has established His throne in the heavens and His sovereignty rules over all"AMEN!