Skip to main content

Is Salvation in Peter's Hands (As Well as the Popes) Because Jesus Supposedly Gave Him the Literal Keys of Heaven?

According to a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic apologist (who I'll probably dub as Mr. Whistle when I mention him) he claimed that salvation is in the hands of Peter because Jesus gave the former the keys of Heaven. The guy is clearly taking things out of context with what he says. I wonder does he even bother to check out the idioms of the Bible since some passages use a figure of speech instead of speaking everything literally?

If he can't get Matthew 16:18 correctly where he said that Peter the Rock even when the Good News Translation for Roman Catholics says otherwise (and worse for them Peter is differentiated as a rock and the Rock is clearly not him) then he also misinterprets Matthew 16:19. Let's try to understand Matthew 16:19 with the keys and what they really mean. In his interpretation he's already telling everyone that born again Christians should just go back to the Roman Catholic institution because the Pope supposedly holds salvation in his hands. I don't think this guy is ever going to believe anything outside his own head even if somebody did an exposition on Greek to explain to him that Peter is not the Rock or that Peter doesn't hold salvation.

Claiming that the Popes hold salvation in their hands is a very blasphemous statement. I wonder has he read John 10 and John 14:6? Jesus stated no one can enter Heaven except through Him and Peter is NOWHERE mentioned in those verses. Jesus said only He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. What's so sad is that Roman Catholics say John 14:6 whenever it's convenient, they say they believe it but their beliefs say otherwise. Nowhere in the Gospels is it declared that all must pass through Mary before they can go to Jesus or to Peter before they can go to Jesus. How can a mere man hold the keys of salvation in the first place?

Maybe Mr. Whistle here could appeal to the statement of Popes here which are plain blasphemous and contrary to Scripture:
We decree that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy in the whole world and that this Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christians; that to him in blessed Peter was given by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church as it is contained in the acts of the ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence, 1439, Ibid. p. 206, No. 349)
If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church; or that he directly and immediately received a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction let him be anathema. (Vatican Council I, 1870, Ibid, p. 223, No. 374)
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses possesses a superiority of ordinary power all over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate to which all and whatever rite and collectively are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience to submit not only in the matters that pertain to faith and morals but also in those that pertain to discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Vatican Council I, 1870, p. 224-225, No. 379) 
If then any one shall say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the office of inspection and direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things pertaining to the faith and morals but also in those things that relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world or that he possesses only the principal part and not fullness of this supreme power... Let him be excommunicated and condemned. (Vatican Council I, Ibid, p. 226, No. 382)
Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith for the glory of God our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra that is when, in the discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed at His church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one- which God avert- presume to contradict this our definition- let him be excommunicated and condemned. (Vatican Council I, p. 229. No. 338)

Worse, Mr. Whistle even tells his critics to read the Book of Matthew carefully which I doubt he even did nor does he read the Bible carefully as he claims. He only cherry picks and take things out of context. If he's ever going to cite Scriptures to support it views he can't even get an indirect answer towards it. Not even the letters of Peter have him claiming what the Popes are claiming! It's just plain blasphemy! If he's going to tell me to study history it's history according to their revisionist history.

This is dangerous how this person is making the claim has some friends who ended up chewing themselves by mentioning the biblical truth. One of his comrades I'll refer to as Mr. Loony ended up debunking himself by stating salvation is found alone in Jesus Christ and not in the born again Christian pastors. If salvation is found alone in Jesus Christ then why is Peter and the Popes holding salvation in their hands? This is dangerous since Paul mentioned salvation in Christ alone and Peter isn't even mentioned when it comes to salvation. Peter also made no such claim that salvation was in his hands. If Mr. Whistle here claims it then where's the chapter and verse to directly or indirectly suggest otherwise? I'm willing to give him alternatives but such people change their stance whenever it's convenient for them.

So what's the keys of salvation mentioned in Peter's hands? No, these are not even the seven sacraments as some of Mr. Whistle's comrades claim. It's ironic how they say that born again Christians can't show in the Bible that they are to be called born again Christians while they can't even show in the Bible that the believers in Antioch were first called Catholics nor were early Christians called Catholics. Catholic appears in the Bible (under the Greek) as an adjective and not as a denomination in Acts 9:31. Catholic is described in Acts 9:31 to describe throughout Judea and Galilee and not in Rome. We could spell out Acts 9:31 where throughout is a synonym for universal or catholic. No sign of Peter holding the keys of salvation there. Instead, the keys were symbolic where it was the preaching of the Gospel. Catholic is an adjective and not a denomination in the original Greek.

To understand it further, one must understand figures of speech. Ever heard of the expression of the key of knowledge? Ever seen a symbolic handing over the keys of the city to the newest mayor of the city? It's not a literal key that's handed over but it's a symbolic key. Peter himself has no authority to save or damn anyone. If he did then he would be playing God. Peter only preached the Gospel giving them the warning of how to get saved and how rejecting Christ leads to damnation but never the power to damn or save anyone. Besides, who holds the keys of death and Hell in Revelation 1:18? Hint: It's definitely not Peter.

See also: