Early Church Fathers & Papal Primacy

[Sirach2]

Rohzek,
Just in case you forgot to address these truths, I present them again for your consideration. Did you bypass them because you cannot deny or dispute their veracity?

But since scripture is the only recourse available to some, we will try to meet the need with what they know, after first showing that the underlying principle is clearly evident for Primacy. I refer those following along to post #5 where the concept in the Old Covenant designed by God was prelude and foreshadowing to His ultimate will in the New Covenant. As a perpetual reminder to those who opposed His will in wishing to become equals with Aaron, although not called to that rank by God, Aaron’s staff was to be placed before the Ark perpetually – only Aaron and his successors were to Shepherd God’s people. [Do you insist that God changed this pattern in the New Testament, with **no one specifically appointed to guide the flock?]

As we know, all kingdoms have a King, as God initiated with Saul, followed by David, and his successor, Solomon. In our time, we have a President who has powers of veto, and England has monarchs. There is no such thing as equally shared leadership.

Is. 28:16 “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.’” I’m confident that you know Who that Cornerstone is in the N.T. Did you understand the analogy? Cornerstone / rock?
Isn’t it compelling that Jesus, knowing His time is short, would then designate a new cornerstone/rock to be the foundation of His Church?

John 1:40-42 "Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah.’ (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter). [Bibles today still use the Aramaic “Cephas”. BibleGateway - Keyword Search: cephas”]Here are several versions.]
You insist that the Greek is Petros, but I see it here as Kephas.
GRK: σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται

Wrapped up in Peter’s very name is his God-given mission, Rock (foundation). Any time in scripture that a name was changed by God, the new name signified the new relationship and identity. The formal identification of his full name (Simon Son of John) was again used by Jesus when He summoned the affirmation of Peter’s love. The significance of “Feed my lambs” ( the entire flock) and finally, “Feed my sheep” (bishops and others who will assist in governing the flock). Jn. 21:15-17
Jesus commissioned Peter in the presence of the others. When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" We can clearly see that Jesus singled Peter out from among the rest, with the charge of shepherding the flock.
[On what basis do you deny this commission? Especially, since you are using only scripture to dialog, and were not privy to Sacred Tradition that was handed down. Peter’s primacy was clearly understood by all the early apostles and disciples?]

This scripture further strengthens the fact of Peter’s primacy:
Lk 22:32 “And I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you are restored, confirm your brothers.” What need would there be to signify that he was to do this, if in fact, he was not chief among them? “Confirm” is a strong word with undeniable meanings of leadership. Read them here.]

 

[Sirach2]

Rohzek,
One last point to ponder. Which religion came first? Catholic or Orthodox?
Who broke away after an entire millennium of ONE observance?
Who has the benefit of Sacred Tradtion?

 

[GaryTaylor]

John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

Follow Rohzek Cephas means “rock” in Aramaic. So we can’t say Christ means one thing here and another in Matthew as its conflict, what we could say and do is they are both correct in proper understanding.

So the language doesn’t set a precedence in comprehension. Christ spoke also Aramaic on the Cross etc. Its a translated preference for comprehension. Further the pronouns are 7 in which the first YOU is Christ. It would go like this…

1st You = Christ

2nd You=Peter

3rd You= Peter

4th You= Peter

5th You=Peter

6th You=Peter

7th You=Peter

What can we conclude from this is that the second “you” "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.] refers directly to Peter and the third and so forth and I have to content person and faith as I see no way to rationalize this by the very way the Lord convicts souls. Same with Paul being convicted on the road to Damascus before baptism. Its always both imho. I’m lost to explain otherwise and even in our understanding of conviction by the HS today. So the second “you” being Peter the grammar remains consistent through 19 of “you” being Peter. Otherwise a logical grammar change would be indicated?

Its also a very good point above with Sirah2 in relation to the Davidic Kingdom and passed in person and faith. It should be understand imho.

Follow, so the further “Greek” also admits a host of translation comprehension which in the paradigm your proposing would require comprehensive understanding in every situation. Of which no matter how we look at this would apply to both Peter and Christ. The fact both are called Rock isn’t at odds with anything, in fact its correct understanding of Church=Christ not Peter, we don’t say or think the Church is Peter.

 

[Sirach2]

Cephas means “rock” in Aramaic. So we can’t say Christ means one thing here and another in Matthew as its conflict, what we could say and do is they are both correct in proper understanding.

Its also a very good point above with Sirah2 in relation to the Davidic Kingdom and passed in person and faith. It should be understand imho.

Rohzek is working overtime to twist the scriptures to mean what he believes. With respect to “rock” and the Davidic Kingdom which God swore as an eternal covenant in 2 Sam. 7:12-16, the prophet Daniel used a further exposition.

Dan. 2:44 In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever. 45. That is the meaning of the stone you saw hewn from the mountain without a hand being put to it, which broke in pieces the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold. The great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future; this is exactly what you dreamed, and its meaning is sure."

Again, the image is clear for those who have eyes to see.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t get past the person and faith proposition. Think about that and the implications. In the far reaches of Christianity those who do not believe in the “Church” as we both do EO or CC and others apostolic, or as V-II defines, imho I have met and spoken to souls convicted by the Holy Spirit-person but still slightly mislead in faith. And to some degree isn’t this true of all of us who seek further communion with God? It would be a cold lie to state demons and otherwise. What don’t they have from our own understanding? The fullness of the truth which IS the faith-Church-Christ. In which case Peter had-has the faith blessed and in person as its unthinkable otherwise. Imho there are many souls convicted in person but all are called to the fullness of truth, the faith. I think we can assess the person Peter-Rock found that by Gods will?

I would love to hear what protestants have to say about person and faith in relation to themselves aside from all of us. Serious, I would even suggest faith only not of the person is unthinkable in relation to our own salvation and Gods Kingdom and the understanding resurrection which of the collective whole indicates the individual “I”.

Follow and see the implications now of Rock and Rock. God blessed Peter literally and spiritually in person and faith and God literally did this in person and faith, and let us realize Christ is God “this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” He builds a spiritual and physical Church-Himself and on the physical and spiritual person and faith of Peters conviction. God person and Faith blessed Peter person and faith. And this is passed down person and faith. And I would suggest also blessed by God.

“revealed to you” You being person Peter, the faith was acknowledged in the person of Peter. Faith isn’t a vague concept not connected to Peter, In fact its well defined by Peter and just as above, “this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.”

OK I’m rambling I’ll stop. Agree or disagree?

 

[Rohzek]

The greek below then must be a compared to Christ as you say. So the standard you created below for Peter applies to Christ no?? And my further point is Rock-stone is used in various means what makes you think this is correct above? What historic teaching co-exists with your understanding?

I’ve no intimate knowledge of Greek; only that its grammatical structure is similar to Latin. So I would have to defer to someone here who has better knowledge of Greek. As for the Latin, I’ve looked at the other verses and it is not explicit as to what the gender is.

Many Church Fathers believed the stone to be Christ or the faith in Christ. This includes Hilary of Poitiers,

Hilary of Poitiers:

This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father’s gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature. What blasphemous madness and pitiful folly is it, that will not heed the venerable age and faith of that blessed martyr, Peter himself, for whom the Father was prayed that his faith might not fail in temptation; who twice repeated the declaration of love for God that was demanded of him, and was grieved that he was tested by a third renewal of the question, as though it were a doubtful and wavering devotion, and then, because this third trial had cleansed him of his infirmities, had the reward of hearing the Lord’s commission, Feed My sheep, a third time repeated; who, when all the Apostles were silent, alone recognised by the Father’s revelation the Son of God, and won the pre-eminence of a glory beyond the reach of human frailty by his confession of his blissful faith!

newadvent.org/fathers/330206.htm

Also:

All who therefore hear my words and does them shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock. (Mt. 7:24) A united sense is above. For admonishing the boasting of a the pseudo-prophets and the creations of hypocrites, Christ reveals through the example of a perfect comparison in a man of faith himself, that he, who would hear his words and do them, has built his house upon a rock. And it ihas a firm foundation. And it cannot be destroyed by an attack of temptations. The Lord revealing himself, a strong foundation of a house, within the rock itself. Commentary on Matthew Ch. 6.6

Tentationum progressus.—Omnis ergo qui audit verba mea, et facit, similem eum aestimabo viro sapienti, qui aedificavit domum suam super petram, et reliqua. Sensus est superioribus junctus. Objurgans enim pseudoprophetarum jactantiam et hypocritarum figmenta, per comparationis exemplum perfectae in se fidei hominem exponit, quod is, qui verba sua et audiat et faciat, super petram sit aedificatus, et fundamento stabili firmoque consistat, eumque incidentium tempestatum impetu non posse dissolvi; in petra se ipsum Dominus significans, validum aedificii fundamentum.

Augustine of Hippo:

Chapter 18.— The Keys Given to the Church.

1. He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

newadvent.org/fathers/12021.htm

Augustine here makes it explicit that keys are given to the Church as a whole. What is universal among all believers therefore is their faith. So it is their faith in Christ that is the rock.

Further there are seven pronouns of “you”… one is hard pressed with grammar gymnastics to rationalize them away. Which is why the Church is the authority least we would discussing the ambiguity of “it” in 19 as Augustine documented.

The seven pronouns do. And further where does God convict a soul not person and faith? Its non existent as it would also be for you an I today. How does that make sense? I can’t grasp where this is logical?

Are you referring to the Matthew verses 16:17-19? If so, as I said before, those same powers were extended to the others in Matthew 18:18. As I have maintained, these powers are rooted in their faith in Christ, not Peter. Due to their faith, Christ gave the apostles their powers accordingly.

Generally there are many theories so no I don’t see where “generally” your theory is the accepted mo, and further it still avoids John above and the fact Jesus and Peter would have spoke in their native tongue what reason is there to believe otherwise as Christ is quoted in His native tongue per Bible. Simple fact is because it documented in Greek its implausible everyone spoke Greek. Especially those with a native language other than Greek.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author:

The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.

 

[Rohzek]

Rohzek,
Just in case you forgot to address these truths, I present them again for your consideration. Did you bypass them because you cannot deny or dispute their veracity?

Perhaps I can address them in time, but I am only one person. I can only manage so much.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As I was saying it doesn’t address both are Rock John 1:42 etc. And Peter in aramaic, so with six pronouns in specific reference to Peter in question I simply don’t see where Christ is explicitly speaking of Himself-Rock. Why not implicitly both or specifically Peter?

biblehub.com/john/1-42.htm

And to insist on the greek still leaves for example the same greek for Paul in Corinthians 10:4. and that rock was Christ. In applying the same greek definition to both Peter and Christ.

 

[Sirach2]

As I was saying it doesn’t address both are Rock John 1:42 etc. And Peter in aramaic, so with six pronouns in specific reference to Peter in question I simply don’t see where Christ is explicitly speaking of Himself-Rock. Why not implicitly both or specifically Peter?

biblehub.com/john/1-42.htm

And to insist on the greek still leaves for example the same greek for Paul in Corinthians 10:4. and that rock was Christ. In applying the same greek definition to both Peter and Christ.

I noticed in the many listings at Biblehub above, these two very significant versions:

New American Standard Bible
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter).

King James Bible
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

They each confirm the other. Of course, the Greek is also translated Cephas, as I pointed out a few posts ago. Nobody could possibly doubt the important significance of this passage, as there is no other possible way to understand it.

I have to wonder if Rohzek defended his Protestant beliefs with the same zealous passion while he was a member therein.

 

[steve_b]

Iranaeus is writing against the Gnostics, and is urging them to adhere to proper bishops. The Gnostics believed in secret knowledge that is not propagated via the traditional means. I don’t think Iranaeus is a good example. He is stressing the authority of Rome in this case because unlike the Gnostics, it has a reputable lineage and therefore is more likely to hold correct and orthodox belief.

What Irenaeus writes, is not just for Gnostics
R:

I really regard the Luke passage differently. In the Gospels Matthew and Mark, the dispute is clarified as being between James and John only.

Does it change ANYTHING I said about primacy in #505? No
R:

In those accounts, the prediction of Peter’s denial comes in a completely different location.

Peter’s prediction of denial doesn’t change what I wrote
R:

The closeness between the two events in Luke is misleading.

only for those who argue against the primacy of Peter
R:

Further more the NU-Version of Luke does not include the the portion of Luke 22:31, which says “And the Lord said…” which further emphasizes the separateness of the matter. All in all, I think Matthew 16:18 is the strongest scriptural case you’ve cited, but I find it problematic for its own reasons.

Are you speaking of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies version? Why would you trust that version?
R:

I’m not sure what you mean by the question. Could you be more specific?

When you wrote

#45
“Many people used parts of them. What’s your point?”

I see that, and am asking, who specifically are “many people”, who are they,
and what parts (of what canons) of the false decretals are you speaking of that they used? You need to be more specific

 

[Rohzek]

As I was saying it doesn’t address both are Rock John 1:42 etc. And Peter in aramaic, so with six pronouns in specific reference to Peter in question I simply don’t see where Christ is explicitly speaking of Himself-Rock. Why not implicitly both or specifically Peter?

biblehub.com/john/1-42.htm

Yes, John 1:42 is clearly a reference to Peter. I’ve never objected to that. My objections have been twofold: First, that Matthew 16:18 speaks to Peter, but the rock that the church is built is not Peter himself but rather the faith that he possesses and acts upon. This would be in accordance with the views that Christ speaks of in his metaphors earlier in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 6, and in the Gospel of Luke 7:15-27. In those parables, the rock is the faith. Second,those powers that Christ gives are to Peter personally. However, later in Matthew 18:18 Christ gives those same powers to the rest of the apostles. That’s my argument in a nutshell.

And to insist on the greek still leaves for example the same greek for Paul in Corinthians 10:4. and that rock was Christ. In applying the same greek definition to both Peter and Christ.

This is confusing. I was under the impression that you were wanting to know the gender of Greek word for “rock” when used in the Epistles in reference to Christ, since Christ is masculine. But this saying above implies that your concern is about definition. I’m going to assume that you intend the former meaning (gender). In answer to your legitimate question, I can only say that I do not know the answer. Unfortunately, the Latin is vague on the gender in those verses in the epistles. I’ve been using the Latin this whole time because I know the language. The only thing I know of Greek is that it abides by similar grammatical rules. We’d have to find someone here on these forums more familiar with Greek to answer your question. All that being said, I’m very interested in whatever the answer is.

 

[Rohzek]

I noticed in the many listings at Biblehub above, these two very significant versions:

New American Standard Bible
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter).

King James Bible
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

They each confirm the other. Of course, the Greek is also translated Cephas, as I pointed out a few posts ago. Nobody could possibly doubt the important significance of this passage, as there is no other possible way to understand it.

I have to wonder if Rohzek defended his Protestant beliefs with the same zealous passion while he was a member therein.

My concern is with not with definition, but rather with the differences between Peter’s name (“Petrus”) and the rock (“petram”). The former is masculine while the later is feminine. The difference in gender suggests that the latter is not intended to refer to Peter.

As for my Protestant beliefs, since you seem so interested in me personally, really were never as informed as my beliefs were when I was Catholic or presently. The major reason why I became Methodist was because around 12, I started living with my father who had a recent career change. He was never Catholic and decided to become a Methodist minister. So at the time I converted to Methodism because it made more sense to me and because I went to my father’s church. By the age of 15 or 16, I decided that Catholicism was more correct than Methodism for a variety of reasons. It was the result of my own research rather than someone confronting me about my views and me having to defend them. I could not openly practice my Catholic faith until I left for college since my father would not allow it. I did not encounter Orthodoxy until my junior year of college. I have a profound respect for Catholicism and the Catholic Church was an important factor throughout most of my life. For that, I am eternally grateful. All that being said, I left for Orthodoxy simply because I found its historical arguments concerning the papacy more convincing. I was inclined to side with Catholicism because it was my base position. Furthermore, the back and forth between Catholics and Orthodox on correct interpretations of certain scriptures regarding Peter and his keys seemed vague enough to go either way on the issue. Therefore, I turned to the work of historians. I asserted that if the papal claims were true, then they can be historically demonstrated between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Twelfth Century. While historians don’t concern themselves usually with these theological questions, I nevertheless found their works informative. I read works from Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and secular scholars. While much still remains unclear in the historical record, I came to the conclusion that there simply was not enough evidence to support the papal claims despite my desire to see them to be true. My convictions are not out of zealous passion, but rather my own frank assessment of the evidence.

 

[Sirach2]

My concern is with not with definition, but rather with the differences between Peter’s name (“Petrus”) and the rock (“petram”). The former is masculine while the later is feminine. The difference in gender suggests that the latter is not intended to refer to Peter.

You continue to base your entire argument on a flawed Greek translation? There is no doubt that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that He renamed him Cephas (Peter), due to the important primacy he was to hold in Jesus’ founding of His Church. We go by the “intent” of the original designation, not the misuse of a later author who could not find a proper substitute for the Aramaic word. There was never a name in history given to man with a name “Cephas.” In law, the judge always attempts to determine the “intent,” which gives him the right basis with which to judge.

You have been given the intent throughout this thread, starting with Aaron, the prophecy of Daniel, and the fact that there is no such thing as a Kingdom or monarchy without a King or specific leader, with everyone doing equal leadership. It is unheard of. I ask that you read those posts which reveal God’s plan, and ultimately Jesus’ purpose in setting one of His own as primary leader.

Using grammar to decide the case against God, is not only lame and false, but quite a preposterous motive to go against the truth. You may continue to make your claim, but Catholics, as I said earlier, know from Sacred Tradition what the true intent of Jesus was. Nuff said, I believe.

Thanks for sharing your personal history with regard to religion. May God help you to lay aside this error and come to Truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Amen to that!

My concern is with not with definition, but rather with the differences between Peter’s name (“Petrus”) and the rock (“petram”). The former is masculine while the later is feminine. The difference in gender suggests that the latter is not intended to refer to Peter.

If Jesus delivered this saying in Aramaic, as many scholars assume, how could it have contained a Greek word play? Thus its suggesting first of all Christ spoke Greek and to Peter also speaking greek. You honestly believe that? There’s no reason to believe any of that very much the opposite. In which case theres a single meaning for both in translation, but still a physical and spiritual interplay thus person and faith and both in the final analysis.

You are Rock and upon this Rock, being-person- faith/spiritual etc…metaphor of the events which just happened in 16:17

I think a more relevant context is Matthew 7:24 and Luke 6:48

(So anyone who listens to these my words and does them, will be likened to a
wise man, who has built his house on the rock.)

The faith of Abraham was considered a foundation to build on-person and faith. He listened to God concerning the sacrifice of his son and demonstrated his obedience. I think it is quite possible to understand petra in Mat 16:18 to refer to Peter, it is
likely that the context of what Peter just did is in focus, namely he listened
to the revelation from the Father and had faith to accept and proclaim Jesus as
the Messiah, the Son of God.

It brings into focus petro, petra and petran which is difficult since in Aramaic we have one like word Cephas, John 1:42 and various elaborations by Paul etc, difficult to reconstruct Jesus wordplay in Aramaic. I don’t see any difficulty with Petra as it relates to Christ and Peter, however I can’t see how Petra and Petran are not closely related. 6:48 Luke and as above Matthew 7:25 bear a striking resemblance to Matthew 16:18 in transliteration and word construction. Metaphorically, a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul which is exactly as we have suggested person and faith and as indicated when reference to Christ not as a physical being but as spiritual “spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock-petra” which again relates in comparison to Matthew 7:24 and Luke 6:48 in which Christ uses a like metaphor

The House on the Rock
…47"Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.”

Its a play on words of physical and spiritual…person and faith and here Peter and in a like manner Christ.

 

[Rohzek]

You continue to base your entire argument on a flawed Greek translation? There is no doubt that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that He renamed him Cephas (Peter), due to the important primacy he was to hold in Jesus’ founding of His Church. We go by the “intent” of the original designation, not the misuse of a later author who could not find a proper substitute for the Aramaic word. There was never a name in history given to man with a name “Cephas.” In law, the judge always attempts to determine the “intent,” which gives him the right basis with which to judge.

See this is where our assumptions force us to take divergent views. We both agree that Christ probably spoke Aramaic to Peter when he said this. Alright so far so good. However, I believe that if such an intent existed, the author of the Gospel of Matthew would have used the appropriate grammar to make it apparent. You however don’t think that is so because you believe that the author made a simple translation error when recounting the event.

You have been given the intent throughout this thread, starting with Aaron, the prophecy of Daniel, and the fact that there is no such thing as a Kingdom or monarchy without a King or specific leader, with everyone doing equal leadership. It is unheard of. I ask that you read those posts which reveal God’s plan, and ultimately Jesus’ purpose in setting one of His own as primary leader.

With regards to your Isaiah verse, the cornerstone spoken of is not Peter but Christ. This is actually in accordance with Peter’s views in 1 Peter 2:6 when he quotes it. Christ is a cornerstone because he unites both Jews and Gentiles.

As for your vague Aaron example, no, I do not believe that Christ did not appoint a shepherd. In fact, I believe all bishops are appointed by Christ and therefore all of them are shepherds. The twelve apostles were the first and all that comes afterwards was due to their work and efforts.

As for Luke 22:32, going off the Vulgate confirm (confirma) can mean many things. It can mean to encourage or to strengthen. Most English translations from the Greek that I have read have it translated as “strengthen.” Such a deed is not exclusive nor necessarily a part of being a leader. There is nothing in this that imparts a Petrine primacy as you understand it.

Using grammar to decide the case against God, is not only lame and false, but quite a preposterous motive to go against the truth. You may continue to make your claim, but Catholics, as I said earlier, know from Sacred Tradition what the true intent of Jesus was. Nuff said, I believe.

Thanks for sharing your personal history with regard to religion. May God help you to lay aside this error and come to Truth.

I don’t think it is lame at all. You have to understand that from my point of view, using grammar is essential to finding out what God truly wants. Furthermore, as an Orthodox Christian, I don’t neglect Sacred Tradition either. We’re both claiming the same fountain of truth here, but have totally different interpretations on this matter.

 

[Sirach2]

See this is where our assumptions force us to take divergent views. We both agree that Christ probably spoke Aramaic to Peter when he said this. Alright so far so good. However, I believe that if such an intent existed, the author of the Gospel of Matthew would have used the appropriate grammar to make it apparent. You however don’t think that is so because you believe that the author made a simple translation error when recounting the event.

Not really, for I did show you earlier that the Greek used the word Kephas. You must be speaking of a different Greek version than this. Why would anyone take another version in lieu of Aramaic, where the true intent is shown?

With regards to your Isaiah verse, the cornerstone spoken of is not Peter but Christ. This is actually in accordance with Peter’s views in 1 Peter 2:6 when he quotes it. Christ is a cornerstone because he unites both Jews and Gentiles.

I quoted from Daniel. Yes, originally it did mean Jesus, but when Jesus knew His time was short, He appointed a successor. No other apostle was given a specific name change, which always coincided literally with the new identify and mission when God/Jesus renamed a person (which was very few in history, if you recall). No other apostle was signified as the Rock/cornerstone foundation upon which His Church was built, except Peter.

As for your vague Aaron example, no, I do not believe that Christ did not appoint a shepherd. In fact, I believe all bishops are appointed by Christ and therefore all of them are shepherds. The twelve apostles were the first and all that comes afterwards was due to their work and efforts.

The example of Aaron was not vague. Clearly and without doubt, Korah’s band experienced death for their boldness in assuming they shared equal authority with Aaron - not so, not so. Read it again. Yes, bishops are all shepherds, but they are not without a successor/leader…

As for Luke 22:32, going off the Vulgate confirm (confirma) can mean many things. It can mean to encourage or to strengthen.

Use the Aramaic translation and you will see it with clear certainty.
biblehub.com/luke/22-32.htm
“And I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail, and when you are restored, confirm your brothers.”

You have to understand that from my point of view, using grammar is essential to finding out what God truly wants. Furthermore, as an Orthodox Christian, I don’t neglect Sacred Tradition either. We’re both claiming the same fountain of truth here, but have totally different interpretations on this matter.

Grammar distorts the process when the true intent is obvious in Aramaic. See my comment about the Greek use of “Kephas” in an earlier post - no grammar problem there whatsoever. As for Tradition, I ask again which came first for 1000 years? Catholicism or Orthodox? Who broke away? Who failed to listen to Tradition and those who handed down the true intent of Jesus?

I think we need to agree to disagree, for it is plain to see that you are fixated in your beliefs and will accept no other view but your own, whether it be true or not. Pages upon pages have been written over many centuries with unfruitful appeals from our Popes to return to unity. Therefore, I don’t expect that our discussion will be any different. I think it is time to exit. God bless!

 

[Sirach2]

Just to share an additional exposition of the Greek wording for Peter, as posted by another here at CAF, FWIF.

The Bible use Koine Greek.** In Koine Greek Petros was never used as it was not a word.** Petra was the only word, but it is a feminine word so they changed the suffix of Petra and made it masculine by using “os” (ος) instead of “a” (α). Kind of like Latin, all words that end in “a” or “æ” are feminine with the exception of Profession. While “r” & “us” are usually Masculine, and “um” is neuter.

Though even with that knowledge, Christ used the Aramaic-Syriac word Cephas (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ), as the Greek transliteration of this word (Κηφᾶς) is used in John 1:42. This information alone would render the whole debate redundant, though there are still those who still try to prove that these words have different meanings.

However the real and perfect translation of “Keefo” (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ) is Stone. The exact translation of Rock is “Shuho” (ܫܽܘܥܳܐ). At the same time, if you search in the Aramaic for the deeper meaning of “Shuho” it gives you again the word “Keefo.” There is no real difference between them. In the old Aramaic version of the gospel readings you see that the word Keefo is used with the meaning of Shuho. (Cƒ. Antiochian Syriac Liturgy)

So in Jn. 1:42 “And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter” Christ here literally changed Simon’s name to Rock (Peter). What is most fascinating, Jesus, our Lord and our God, is the Rock (cf. II Reg. xxii. 2-3)…that is why His changing Simon’s name to “Rock” is so significant.

When looking at Ephesians ii. 19-20 The verses are:
“Now then you are not strangers and foreigners: but you are citizens of the saints, and the domesticals of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, JESUS Christ himself being the highest corner stone.” “Corner stone” is, of course, a different metaphor from “foundation stone.” Christ is at once the Architect i.e., the Builder., of the Church and the “corner stone” holding it together. But He built it upon the Apostles and Prophets as foundation stones, Peter being the “foundation rock” upon which Christ based the whole of His building. That is the sense of the words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” And such is the only interpretation sound scholarship will permit.

So the actual translation of Mt. 16:18 is:

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂
Literally,
“And I say to thee: That thou art a rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of sheol shall not prevail against it.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just to share an additional exposition of the Greek wording for Peter

You would think had this been an issue as contended the Greek orthodox would have bought it up in antiquity and noted a distinction immediately, I can’t find a thing, nor with Luther.

 

[Sirach2]

You would think had this been an issue as contended the Greek orthodox would have bought it up in antiquity and noted a distinction immediately, I can’t find a thing, nor with Luther.

Good morning, Gary. Praise be to God for this very special feast today of St. Matthew!

Yes, if we consider that this apostle wrote in Hebrew, NOT Greek, his version of Mt. 16:18 is the most authentic, especially since he was one of the 12, and would have been present among them to know this truth. The Greek is merely a later translation. We must go to the original Aramaic/Hebrew writings to discern the intent of Our Lord, as you and the rest of us know.

 

[GaryTaylor]

One of the oldest biblical manuscripts we have are in this Edessene dialect of Aramaic: Syriac. The standard Syriac version of the bible is known as the “Peshitta,” with the Old Testament having been translated in the 2nd century and the New Testament by the 4th century. I thought I’d share the passage in question as it appears in the Peshitta version of Matthew, which is the closest textual evidence we have to what the conversation would have looked like in Aramaic.

ܐܴܦ݂ ܐܷܢܳܐ ܐܴܡܰܪ ܐ̱ܢܳܐ ܠܴܟ݂ ܂ ܕܱ݁ܐܢ̄ܬ݁ ܗ̄ܽܘ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܂ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟܻ݁ܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܷܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ̱݁ܬ݁ܝ܂ ܘܬ݂ܱܪ̈ܥܶܐ ܕܱ݁ܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܴܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂

“Again I say to you that you are the Rock (Kepha), and upon this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church, and the gates of Sheol will not subdue it.”

In both places we see the same word, ܟܺܐܦܳܐ (Kepha or Kepho depending on pronunciation), which is just what we were expecting based on the arguments we’ve seen made about what Jesus would have actually said in Aramaic. I think this fact corroborates the argument, already made by others, that the disparity in gender between Peter’s name and the “this rock” upon which Jesus promised to build His Church is based on the demands of Greek noun inflection.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

Greek is an inflected (not “reflexive”) language, which means that the forms of nouns change based on the function a word is performing in a sentence. When this happens, the base meaning of the word remains the same. The inflection communicates information about how the word is being used grammatically but not what it means.

In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection. Petros and petra are two different words in Greek. They are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and petra is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

The point the article is making is that in Attic Greek there was a slight difference in meaning between the two, but in Koine Greek (the dialect of the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D.

jimmyakin.com/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html

Two points to notice “Peshitta” and “In the case of petros vs. petra, the change is not an inflection.”

Which in my earlier post it how I took this also. Which gets to the real point of the early church fathers and Cyprian in council. Its acknowledged the apostolic succession, its assumed in acknowledgement all the Bishops in communion shared the like authority by the Keys with binding and loosing further repeated and elaborated in Matthew 18 (“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.).

However, most importantly it “assumes” the “faith” only and by doing this as I contend its not only incorrect but then the same applies to “all the Bishops”. As I contend this is “impossible” and “unthinkable” and further seeing the faith and person and physical and spiritual does explain the word dynamics

They are similar because they are cognates (just as “president” and “presider” are cognates in English but are nonetheless two different words with different, though related, meanings). Because they are two different words, the inflection (change of form) of petros and petra is not what is at issue here. The basic meanings of the terms is.

So you is for sure Rock and Rock but the dynamics change as Jimmy stated and to reflect the physical and spiritual/faith and of Peter 17 and further of all the Bishops as stated in 18.

There IS no argument of “person and faith” -convicted by the HS? How?