When did Jesus remove the Authority He gave St Peter in Mt 16:17-19?

You need to be more specific for the fundies.

In other words, we need to break it down for people like Maurog III, so lets explain the succession of the Apostolic Authority within the Scriptures:

The authority of the Apostles did not die with them, and we know this when we look at: Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. [Acts 1:22-23] † And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [Acts 13:2] † And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul, to go unto the sea; but Silas and Timothy remained there. And they that conducted Paul, brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a commandment from him to Silas and Timothy, that they should come to him with all speed, they departed. [Acts 17:14-15] † For the Son of God, Jesus Christ who was preached among you by us, by me, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, was not, It is and It is not, but, It is, was in him. [2 Corinthians 1:19] † Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. [2 Timothy 4:11-12]

He never removed it; his authorization and promise is still in force after 2000 years. There is no other explanation for its survival for all that time against all the odds.

To recap:

1. He authorized an actual organization with a human leader, Peter, to safeguard his teachings and carry out his sacraments.

2. He made a promise that the gates of Hades would not prevail against this organization. That means divine intervention against the powers and influence of rebellious angels.

3. He gave Peter, working for consensus within the church, agency to make decisions that would be honored in heaven.

4. The powers to "bind and loose" can be interpreted to include apostolic succession (without which the church would die after the first generation or fall into heresy), forgiveness of sins (John 20:23: "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven”), and interpretation of Jesus' teachings.

On this last power, without the power to interpret, the church could not retain relevance or authority in response to the changing moral challenges we face through history. For example, we would have nothing to say about birth control pills, in vitro fertilization, or cloning if we were restricted to first-century statements.

Cheers,

Bruce

Hello,

Well Luther, Calvin and the lot came along and run them off starting in 1517. Henry VIII at first defended the Catholic Church brilliantly in his Defence of The Seven Sacraments but pulled out and took his business elsewhere, also skidding Peter and his successors when he was not granted his annulment.

Cheers,

Michael Kelly

An interesting irony to me is that many of the Christians who say you have to read Holy Scripture as literal and infallible, use tortured logic to explain away this particular passage. They do the same with Mat 26:26 and Luke 22:19, where Christ instructed us to eat His body (not a symbol of His body) to have eternal life.

The successors to Peter are a given with this phrase, "This is My Body and This is My Blood OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT...." An "eternal testament" does not quit with one appointee, it continues from valid successor to valid successor, qualified to be "of the faith," and qualified to intend to hold that faith. It is a structure, and Christ gives the formula to those who see it plainly written there.

That is the entire, larger picture, the snippet of scripture tells us, and the Doctors of the Church define. "I give thee, Peter, the Keys to the Kingdom, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound in heaven;...etc.," That is the Church which Christ left for us. He never mentioned the word "bible."

BUT, YOU MISSED THE PART WHERE CHRIST DID REMOVE PETER'S AUTHORITY, and, yes, it is in the official Vulgate and Douay!!! Christ describes His coming Passion, Suffering and Death, which Peter finds fearsome and despicable for so "holy a Man as his Lord and God." He replies to Our Lord, saying: "Lord, be it far from thee; this shall not happen to Thee. Who (Jesus) turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, (to Peter) thou art a scandal unto Me, because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men." PETER LOST HIS POSITION THROUGH HIS OWN DENIAL OF THE CRUCIFIXION TO COME. Matt 16: 20-ff. Douay AND KJV. [Yes, a pope lost his faith.]

But we know Peter was greatly sorry for this blasphemy, and Christ restored Peter once again when He revealed to Peter, James, and John His TRANSFIGURED HEAVENLY CHRIST, in all His glory. Yet, Peter answered once again for the Apostles, "Let us make 3 tabenacles one for thee, one for Moses and one for El;ias." The Apostles yet did not understand about Christ's Divine and Human natures which He is as LOGOS:, meaning He is God, and He is Man, both, not combined natures, but separate, the Mystery of Faith.

There is so much in the bible, that St. John is right. The world is not large enough to contain all the books, if it was all written, of all the things Christ said.

Traditional Catholics at

traditionalmass.org/

Peter was given the keys and then he gave them to the church. Just as a password to get into your computer is only yours as long as you don't give it to anyone else.

If was never intended that Peter should keep the keys.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There they are, the more people that have the keys, the more that can enter into the kingdom.

Sometime around the mid 16th century--when Protestants claimed he never gave it to him in the first place. I'm surprised they didn't take THAT out of the bible too!

The church was established by the Lord Jesus Christ. He said, "I will build my church" (Mt. 16:18). It is His institution, and He is not only the Founder and Builder, but the Foundation and Chief corner stone (1 Co. 3:11; 1 Pe. 2:6). The Lord Jesus Christ chose twelve men as His Apostles, and it was through these Apostles that He established the first churches and laid the doctrinal foundation for all future churches. Ep. 2:20 tells us that the Apostles formed the foundation for the church, not merely Peter. "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father... and are built upon the foundation of the APOSTLES and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ep. 2:18,20). If a church does not have Jesus Christ as its Founder and Foundation, the Apostles as its teachers, and the N.T. churches as its model, it is not a true church.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." According to the Catholic Church, this is where Jesus appointed Peter to be the first Pope, the earthly head of the church. That is, the Catholics teach that "this rock" is a reference to Peter. The Scriptures are quite clear in stating that the Rock is Jesus Christ and no one else. In fact, Peter himself testifies of this truth when he calls Jesus the "chief cornerstone" in I Peter 2:6. Paul tells us in I Corinthians 3:11 that Jesus Christ is the "foundation". He then says in I Corinthians 10:4 that Jesus Christ is the "Rock". The reader might also give some consideration to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:29-31. Jesus Christ is the foundation (I Cor. 3:11), the perfect match for the "rock" ("petra") of Matthew 16:18. Christ is clearly the Rock in Scripture (II Sam. 22:32; Psa. 40:2; 42:9; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; Acts 4:11-12).

If Peter was named as the highest authority in the new church, why did Paul win all their arguments?

Christianity by the late first century had become the church of Paul, not the church of Peter. If as you say the Church is the final authority, then this fact in itself proves that Peter's grant of authority was essentially meaningless.

The power to bind and loose has been given to the church, if it hasn't, by what authority was the canon formalized?