Hey, I accept Petrine authority. That is the inescapable conclusion of Mt. 16:19. I just don't accept the argument that Peter's authority is transferred to the Bishop of Rome.
Well, you're in trouble now. ;-)
I just don't accept the argument that Peter's authority is transferred to the Bishop of Rome.
The reference to the keys is usually thought to be a reference to Isaiah 22:22, which refers to the office of "grand vizier" or chamberlain in the Davidic monarchy. That office certainly had a succession (it was not a one-time deal; there was always a grand vizier).
So, if you use the analogy, that would mean that the Petrine office has succession, too. If it's not in Rome, where is it?
THanks for the clarifications on this and on Jack Chick. It's Unam Sanctam (not Sanctum) and Campion is right about its more limited claims. (Also the context must be considered: the kings were trying to create state churches, failed at that point but succeeded 200 years later with horrendous results.) You may want to restudy the matter (as well as Petrine succession)--I think some of your conclusions are based on some faulty data. But I appreciate your irenic attitude and have tried to reciprocate.
13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things.Peter intended his authority to transcend his death.