Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism’s Infallibility Problem

[Abu]

Benhur #138
There is only one word for ‘rock’ in Aramaic. - Untrue"

Look and learn – they spoke and wrote in Aramaic.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207]. Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often. [Keating, p 208-11].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.” [My emphasis].

In reality, Fr Stanley L Jaki, S.J. points out that the consummate skill of Jesus in quoting the Bible was manifest in the name He gave to Simon. “Instead of calling Simon sur, he called him Kepha. The former was the chief biblical word for rock, the latter was the Aramaic version, commonly used in Jesus’ time, for the biblical keph, which occurs only a few times in the Old Testament.

“Jesus’ choice of* kepha* left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman.

Fr Jaki concludes that “Christ’s words ‘you are rock,’ have their validity even if Yahweh had never been called Rock in the Old Testament.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence. [See *And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81].

247. Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)?
Although it was extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others. To St. Peter, whose name He had changed from Simon to “Rock”, He had said in the singular: “Thou are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say those additional words to the other apostles. Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.” The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence . . . no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.”
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=equally&db=5

 

[benhur]

Look and learn – they spoke and wrote in Aramaic.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207]. Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often. [Keating, p 208-11].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.” [My emphasis].

In reality, Fr Stanley L Jaki, S.J. points out that the consummate skill of Jesus in quoting the Bible was manifest in the name He gave to Simon. “Instead of calling Simon sur, he called him Kepha. The former was the chief biblical word for rock, the latter was the Aramaic version, commonly used in Jesus’ time, for the biblical keph, which occurs only a few times in the Old Testament.

“Jesus’ choice of* kepha* left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman.

Fr Jaki concludes that “Christ’s words ‘you are rock,’ have their validity even if Yahweh had never been called Rock in the Old Testament.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence. [See *And On This Rock

, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81].

Hi A,

So are you saying Aramaic had no other words for kepha for stone or rock, that the Aramaic word for rock “SHU’A” does not exist ?

" A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be:
“You are KE’PHA’ (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A’ (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”
This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text:
“You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church.”"

graceway.com/articles/article_017.html

Blessings

 

[Rohzek]

On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.”
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=equally&db=5

I wouldn’t be surprised if those exegetes at the earliest date from the Late Middle Ages. Most are probably beginning from the Protestant Reformation. This understanding is contrary to the teachings of the Latin Fathers and saints. See the following thread as to why:

That bolded part is partly what I am getting at with [Matthew]. The keys were understood by the Church Fathers, and other Latin saints to have been about the power of binding and loosing. Additionally, they understood those keys to have at least been given to all of the apostles. They NEVER understood them as exclusive to Peter alone. Again, see my evidence: #17, #18, #19, #38, #67, and #79.

 

[Abu]

Rohzek #143
This understanding is contrary to the teachings of the Latin Fathers and saints.
Referring:
The keys were understood by the Church Fathers, and other Latin saints to have been about the power of binding and loosing. Additionally, they understood those keys to have at least been given to all of the apostles. They NEVER understood them as exclusive to Peter alone.

False.

See: Peter’s Primacy
catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
**
Origen**
"*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose.”

Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
**
Augustine**
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ " (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).*

 

[Rohzek]

And yet none of those support Papal Supremacy, but fit in accordance with the teachings of the Latin Fathers and saints, which I linked. If you had actually read the links that I posted, you would know that. But I suppose copypasta is an easier thing to do than to actually engage in dialogue. I particularly find it humorous that I too enlist Augustine in my position, but you ignore the quote that I provided, which is strictly exegetical thereby making it more exact and easy to understand.

Also, note that only one of those texts you cite is from the genre known as exegesis, which is exactly what the Anglican author was talking about. So your supposed refutation doesn’t even get the correct source genres right, which is incredibly important to understand when interpreting historical sources.

May I also remind you that Orthodox don’t dispute Peter’s reception of the keys. Perhaps if you knew this or at least formally acknowledged it, you could then actually engage in a discussion on the matter. But if you rather just copy and paste stuff, then go ahead. Then I’ll know not to take you seriously.

 

[prodromos]

And yet none of those support Papal Supremacy, but fit in accordance with the teachings of the Latin Fathers and saints, which I linked. If you had actually read the links that I posted, you would know that. But I suppose copypasta is an easier thing to do than to actually engage in dialogue. I particularly find it humorous that I too enlist Augustine in my position, but you ignore the quote that I provided, which is strictly exegetical thereby making it more exact and easy to understand.

Also, note that only one of those texts you cite is from the genre known as exegesis, which is exactly what the Anglican author was talking about. So your supposed refutation doesn’t even get the correct source genres right, which is incredibly important to understand when interpreting historical sources.

May I also remind you that Orthodox don’t dispute Peter’s reception of the keys. Perhaps if you knew this or at least formally acknowledged it, you could then actually engage in a discussion on the matter. But if you rather just copy and paste stuff, then go ahead. Then I’ll know not to take you seriously.

I’ve been ignoring Abu’s posts for a while now.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure we should start talking about who Ignores whom. (Plus, my List would take a while to read through. )

 

[Abu]

Rohzek’s (post #143) re the “Keys: “They NEVER understood them as exclusive to Peter alone” has been shown to be false.

But what seems to rankle him is the reality that Christ placed Peter not only in a Primacy of honour, but gave him a Primacy of jurisdiction – the supreme authority to teach and govern the whole Church, which the first Vatican Council 1870 actually defined in response to the Gallicanism which had persisted.

To explain the real issue we have the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
’CONCILIARISM. The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council’s superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation.

‘In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).’ Etym. Latin* concilium*, council, assembly for consultation.)’
*Modern Catholic Dictionary *by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Augustine]

Are nouns conjugated in Greek as underlined ? From my understanding pronouns are, but not necessarily nouns. Are you really suggesting there are two words, female and male, for every Greek noun ?

No, they aren’t. But using petra as a man’s name is an affront to his masculinity, so the word was masculinized, so to say, to fit Peter.

From my understanding, petra does not equal petros in meaning. One is used to designate a larger rock, and the other a smaller one. It is much more than simply feminine and masculine of an identical object. They are different genders and different objects. The female is larger (rock) and gives way even birth to the smaller (stone). Rock does not equal stone.

You certainly know that Peter’s name in Aramaic is Kephas, which means boulder.

Pax Christi

 

[Augustine]

That is not how Greek works. Adjectives and pronouns are inflected to agree with the natural or grammatical gender of the noun they relate to, but that is not the case with nouns. For example, when we say the prayer “the Father is my hope…” (Η ελπις μου ο Πατηρ…) at the end of compline, we don’t change the gender of hope to match that of Father, even though hope is feminine.

I know that, but I expressed myself poorly. What I meant is that the petra was inflected to petrus to the man Peter. A man with a female noun as the name would not have many legs anywhere among the people of God.

Pax Christi

 

[Cavaradossi]

I know that, but I expressed myself poorly. What I meant is that the petra was inflected to petrus to the man Peter. A man with a female noun as the name would not have many legs anywhere among the people of God.

Pax Christi

If that were the case, why not render it as Πέτρας so as to show more clearly the connection to πέτρα?

 

[Randy_Carson]

@benhur

Petros and Petra–Much Ado About Nothing

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Petros in Homer’s Greek

According to Protestant apologists, the Greek word petra means “large rock” whereas the word petros means only a small stone or pebble. If true, this distinction would be significant since Matthew 16:18-19 refers to Peter as petros; consequently, the claim is made that Peter was only a small, insignificant stone or pebble and not the rock upon which Jesus promised to build His Church.

However, in The Illiad, the ancient Greek author, Homer, used petros to describe a very large stone. In The Illiad, Chapter 20, the last word in line 288 is petros. Was this a small stone, easily hefted? Homer has a far different image in mind. Here is the full passage translated into English:

285σμερδαλέα ἰάχων: ὃ δὲ χερμάδιον λάβε χειρὶ
286Αἰνείας, μέγα ἔργον, ὃ οὐ δύο γ᾽ ἄνδρε φέροιεν,
287οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσ᾽: ὃ δέ μιν ῥέα πάλλε καὶ οἶος.
288ἔνθά κεν Αἰνείας μὲν ἐπεσσύμενον βάλε πέτρῳ
289ἢ κόρυθ᾽ ἠὲ σάκος, τό οἱ ἤρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον,
290τὸν δέ κε Πηλεΐδης σχεδὸν ἄορι θυμὸν ἀπηύρα,

The last word in line 288 is petros. Was this a small stone, easily hefted? Homer has a far different image in mind. Here is the full passage translated into English:

But Achilles drew his sharp sword and leapt upon him furiously, [285] crying a terrible cry; and Aeneas grasped in his hand a stone—a mighty deed—one that not two mortals could bear, such as men are now; yet lightly did he wield it even alone. Then would Aeneas have smitten him with the stone, as he rushed upon him, either on helm or on the shield that had warded from him woeful destruction, [290] and the son of Peleus in close combat would with his sword have

classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.20.xx.html

Homer uses two words for the “rock” or “stone” that was described as being so large that it would require two normal men to lift. The second word in the passage above is petros. So, Homer sees petros as a movable stone but one that is by no means small.

Based upon a posting by Huiou Theou: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=45207&highlight=Homer

 

[steido01]

I guess Prodromos doesn’t realize that you guys have Luther as your infallible Pope.

Me either, apparently. :hypno:

 

[steve_b]

Ugh. There are so many mischaracterizations and downright inaccuracies about the “Protestant” view of the canon, that I stopped reading after the third paragraph. Does not one non-Lutheran left on this earth actually understand what the Lutheran understanding of the canon is?

internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Re: the “Protestant view”

Why not summarize for everyone, from the Lutheran Protestant perspective, the CANON, and who / how / when was it numbered and defined?.

 

[Peter_J]

Me either, apparently. :hypno:

Always happy to help with a protestant’s education! :thankyou:

 

[steido01]

Re: the “Protestant view”

Why not summarize for everyone, from the Lutheran Protestant perspective, the CANON, and who / how / when was it numbered and defined?.

It’s the exact same reasoning that the Catholic Church used prior to Trent (or Florence or Cathage if you’re one of those special folks who thinks local councils can somehow speak for the Ecumenical whole). I’m not sure I could explain it any better than the article I posted. Or, say, Cardinal Cajetan.

But here’s the idea in a nutshell: Authoritatively, we start with the Gospels, because they give the clearest witness to Christ. Using those, we also bring in what Christ Himself cited as Scripture (most of the Old Testament). Using this historical information in conjunction with the Apostolic witness of the Apostles, we can safely include the Pauline and Petrine Epistles and Book of Acts. These form the homolegomena as agreed upon by nearly every Christian body around. Other books that may be inspired but that the church has historically been less-certain about form the remaining books (antilegomena). At minimum, the canon should be between 66-73 books (Yes, I intentionally worded it that way). Possibly more, depending on how they are used.

 

[truthseeker32]

As they have done in the past, Perry Robinson and Isa Almisry destroyed Joe’s arguments. What I find really shameful about all of this is that Joe continues to put forward these arguments without actually engaging Isa’s or Perry’s very solid points. He is dishonestly perpetuating flawed and rebutted arguments.

 

[benhur]

No, they aren’t. But using petra as a man’s name is an affront to his masculinity, so the word was masculinized, so to say, to fit Peter.

Hi A,

Then why use a feminine secondary name referencing Peter (when there is a masculine one) ?
Are you agreeing that petra is a bigger rockmass than petros then?
And why was it OK to reference Jesus with both feminine and masculine ?

You certainly know that Peter’s name in Aramaic is Kephas, which means boulder.

Only if you live in a Herculean world where one could throw boulders. As it is, many have ‘stone’ or rock , as if one could throw it. You can throw a petros but not necessarily a petra.

Petros is a different object than petros.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

As they have done in the past, Perry Robinson and Isa Almisry destroyed Joe’s arguments.

I’ll have to take your word for that. But, speaking as someone who never heard of Joe Heschmeyer before this thread, can Perry and Isa tell me why I should even care in the first place? That to me is the real question (although admittedly they could probably ask the same about some of the blogs that I read ).