Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism’s Infallibility Problem

[benhur]

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?

Hi Randy,

I think the argument the CC uses of masculinizing petra to fit Peter shows then the understanding that indeed petra is a different object that petra,as opponents state per your above quote.

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.”

Good up to the last/secondary “cephas” That is conjecture. it also denies that there are other words in Aramaic for stone/rock (shu’a i think)

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.

OK.That is the CC argument. I think you know the other(s) understanding. That indeed Jesus did not mean Peter twice, even in Aramaic, hence the two different Greek words. The smaller rock being part of or upon the larger rockmass. That makes a lot of sense also. No one denies everything is first built on Christ , the chief cornerstone,even the petros and petras.

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]).

Again good, understandable point. It has also been posted here that other scholars have a different opinion, that the distinction was not “lost”. And perhaps that the context directs which way to go. And we both have differing contexts , therefore differing understanding of the same text.

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so?

Good point again, but remember it is not explicit that Peter was both either. Both sides can say, “why didn’t he just say so (Upon you Peter I will build my church”) ?

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.

Regardless all previous and following uses of petra/petros when referencing beings refer to diety and never a man.(well, once we are all referred to as “living stones”, laid upon Christ.

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.

OK, I would say Peter does not refer to himself as such , nor does scripture in terms of rock, stones ,foundations references.he is referenced as an equal foundation.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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

Hi Randy.

I was mistaken about petr/petros being used for us being" living stones". I believe it is s different Greek word altogether.

If petra/petros is not such a big deal, and I think someone posted them to be “synonyms”, and your post here alludes the same, then why is it not, “You are Petros (Peter) and upon this petros (Peter) I will build my church” ?

If you use the argument of feminine/ masculine, one is actually saying petra /petros are also different objects of size. If you say they are the same object, then why was not the masculine used twice ?

Again, I think we are all left to come with predisposed ideas as to discerning the understanding of this passage ( we need other passages/understanding to help with context).

Blessings.

 

[Rohzek]

Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism’s Infallibility Problem
by Joe Heschmeyer
shamelesspopery.com/orthodox-and-protestant-infallibility-problem/

Definitely worth a read.

This too is definitely worth a read: shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

 

[steve_b]

But here’s the idea in a nutshell: Authoritatively, we start with the Gospels, because they give the clearest witness to Christ.

Actually

Re: authority, you are relying on the authority of the Catholic Church that the gospels numbering 4, are what the Catholic Church says they are.

I’ll explain in the next response
s:

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. *

That Christian body everywhere that you mention is ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς (Acts 9:31) = the kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

And the oldest canon we know of ( assembled ~180 a.d.) is the Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html

***Note: **the authority (mentioned in that document) that can establish the canon, is The Catholic Church. *

the canon we have today, ( 73 books ) was defined in 382 by pope Damasus I, at the council of Rome. Jerome took that canon of 73 books, translated them into Latin, for the first bible (the Vulgate)

Here is the Decree of Pope Damasus I

http://books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405&dq=The+Decree +of+Pope+St.+Damasus+I,+Council+of+Rome. +382+A.D&source=bl&ots=ZeUc7S4cIZ&sig=cU TkVsWkzas9JkjusNcC0I1H6Sc&hl=en&sa=X&ei= V2wUVMH3Fo2MyASvuILABQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBw#v =onepage&q=The%20Decree%20of%20Pope%20St .%20Damasus%20I%2C%20Council%20of%20Rome .%20382%20A.D&f=false
s:

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.

says who?. Luther?

Luther removed 7 OT canonical books, one of which was the book of Wisdom?

did you notice the book of wisdom is included in the Muratorian canon?

 

[steve_b]

This too is definitely worth a read: shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

“Papal infallibility”, is defined very simply

3 points are made These points have to be made by the pope or there is no protection of infallibility.

1. • doctrine is being defined,
   • on faith or morals
   • to be held by the whole Church
   Then he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
   
   From Vat I that defined the doctrine
   

   1. 
      *
      • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
      • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      • that is, when,
        1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
        2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
        3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **

   1. • 
        

        • he possesses,
        • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

        • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
        • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

        papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

 

[Peter_J]

This too is definitely worth a read: shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

At the risk of being overly predictable, I think the question I asked about the other blog,

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 ).

applies here as well (with name modification as needed).

 

[Augustine]

“Papal infallibility”, is defined very simply…

Maybe too simply, for the historical instances that were used to glean this doctrine were brushed off as the equivalents of Francis’ airplane interviews. Maybe history will put infallibility not into the papal office, but into the office of the pope spokesman, who has to repeatedly correct the pope affirming the Magisterium.

We Catholics, after two champions of the Faith, live in humbling times under Francis…

Pax Christi

 

[Peter_J]

We Catholics, after two champions of the Faith
…

Well, two living. Before them we had JPII, JPI, Paul VI, etc. so a lot more than two.

 

[Rohzek]

“Papal infallibility”, is defined very simply

3 points are made These points have to be made by the pope or there is no protection of infallibility.

1. 
   *]doctrine is being defined,
   *]on faith or morals
   *]to be held by the whole Church
   
   Then he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
   
   From Vat I that defined the doctrine

1. 
   I’m not sure what this is suppose to address…

 

[steve_b]

Maybe too simply, for the historical instances that were used to glean this doctrine were brushed off as the equivalents of Francis’ airplane interviews.
Maybe history will put infallibility not into the papal office, but into the office of the pope spokesman, who has to repeatedly correct the pope affirming the Magisterium.

Actually I gave the definition from Vat I, and it’s pretty simple. .

and as we know, off the cuff remarks by a pope don’t, and have never qualified, as infallible statements, nor is every utterance from a pope’s mouth infallible.

btw, which airplane interview, are you thinking of?
A:

We Catholics, after two champions of the Faith, live in humbling times under Francis…

Pax Christi

If you are thinking of the “who am I to judge” comment,

That was grossly taken out of context of what the pope said, by Eugenio Scalfari, a 90+ year old Italian atheist journalist who admitted to not taking any notes during the interview.

Since then I’ve heard all kinds of people misquote what Jesus said as a result of that interview

Here’s the actual quote from Jesus

Lk 12:13 One of the multitude said to him, “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” 15 And he said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” … then He goes on to tell of the rich guy who wants to tear down his old barn to because he can’t store all his stuff in the old barn

Jesus isn’t disqualifying Himself as judge at the end of time. Instead, He’s not going to be a part of one brother coveting his other brothers goods. That goes against the 10th commandment, and God isn’t going to be a part of one committing sin

context makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE!

What was the actual context of the pope’s statement of “who am I to judge”?
wdtprs.com/blog/2014/02/who-am-i-to-judge-thrown-in-your-face-fr-z-says-dont-let-them-get-away-with-it/

Things Pope Francis never said but is reported saying
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/dont-fall-for-this-pope-francis-hoax-5-things-to-know-and-share

 

[steve_b]

I’m not sure what this is suppose to address…

That defines what is necessary for papal infallibility.

Let’s use an example

Pope Benedict XVI is no longer pope. He resigned his office. He can no longer meet requirements 1&2

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **

1. • 
     

     • he possesses,
     • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

     • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

     papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

 

[Abu]

To steve b’s ‘ “Papal infallibility", is defined very simply…’

Augustine in #167 retorts:
Maybe too simply, for the historical instances that were used to glean this doctrine were brushed off as the equivalents of Francis’ airplane interviews. Maybe history will put infallibility not into the papal office, but into the office of the pope spokesman, who has to repeatedly correct the pope affirming the Magisterium.

Such derision from a proclaimed “Catholic” identifies the chasm between such a caricature and the truth established by Christ, given to His Catholic Church, and possessed by real Catholics.

Such a myopic view of infallibility explains the supposition that Pope Francis was “affirming the Magisterium”, when the exercise of that office has been explained and defined by the Church at Vatican I.

The reality of the charisma of Infallibility conveyed by Christ to St Peter has been factually explained in posts #22, 42,148.

 

[Peter_J]

To steve b’s ‘ “Papal infallibility", is defined very simply…’
Such derision from a proclaimed “Catholic” identifies the chasm between such a caricature and the truth established by Christ, given to His Catholic Church, and possessed by real Catholics.

You don’t know the half of it, Abu. For example, not too long ago someone posted of the 1993 Balamand Agreement “the more I read, the more evil I see in it” IIRC.

Somedays I don’t feel like reading half of the posts that deserve to be read.

 

[wynd]

Somedays I don’t feel like reading half of the posts that deserve to be read.

Do you like less than half of the posts half as well as they deserve?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Do you like less than half of the posts half as well as they deserve?

Some scattered clapping, but I’m trying to work out whether it is a compliment.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you like less than half of the posts half as well as they deserve?

I wondered if someone would say that.