Quote: Originally Posted by inkaneer
Petros is the masculine form of Petra which is feminine in gender. Matthew cannot use the feminine form of Petra for a man’s name because Greek grammar rules require that the feminine ending, the -a, be changed to the masculine ending of -os. So petra [feminine] becomes Petros [masculine]. Note that there is no change to the root word which is petr- and there is no change in the meaning either. Petr- means rock and it matters not whether that word has a feminie ending or a masculine one. Now if you don’t believe that then I suggest you enroll in a course in Greek at you local university rather than taking my word or the word of someone else.
St. Matthew may have been obliged to change “petra” to “petros” given that the latter referred to a man, but why then didn’t he use “petros” throughout instead of muddling matters by throwing in “petra”?
Very simple, rules of grammar. In most, if not all languages, nouns have gender. Sometimes the gender will follow sexual lines but not so in other languages. In English a table is neuter gender but in German it is feminine gender. In German a noun’s gender is indicated by the definitive article of *die *(f),
der (m) and
das 
. So in German a table
tafel] is
die tafel. But other languages do not use a definitive article as does German. Latin as well as Greek uses different noun endings onto the root word. So the Latin word for a male who graduated from a school is alumnus and the plural would be alumni while a female graduate would be an alumna and two or more female graduates would be alumnae. In Greek the word for rock is
petra and it is normally femine in gender as distinguished by the
-a ending. But to use this word as a name for a man it must be masculine gender. So the root word *petr- *still means the same, rock, but the gender ending
-a changes to *-os * to reflect the masculine name.
Quote:
Let’s face the facts, if protestants and the Orthodox would ever admit that Petros did mean rock [as any course in Greek grammar will tell you] that would be tantamount to acknowledging that they were indeed wrong and that would result in a succession of corollary beliefs also being wrong and ultimately require that they convert. I submit that neither of them will do that because they lack the humility and are too puffed up by their own vanity to acknowledge their error. They lead people, like you, who are ignorant of Greek grammar into their error. Wake up and smell the incense.
Some Protestants and Orthodox will grant the typical Catholic interpretation–that Peter is the “rock”–as valid. And such folks don’t necessarily become Catholic, because doing so would require them to accept papal supremacy as defined at Vatican I–a tough pill to swallow.
Not really, the first Vatican council didn’t do anything that was not in scripture except to organize it better. I am amazed that the early church had a clear understanding of the universal bishopric of Peter that is lacking in the Orthodox and Protestants. Go to the Book of Acts and look at the council of Jerusalem. The church at Antioch had a problem that they could not resolve. This problem was whether Gentiles should be circumcized into the old covenant first then baptized into the new covenant. They argued back and forth making no progress. So they went to a higher power which was the Apostles in Jerusalem. But even there, as scripture tells us, “…there was much debate”. Then Peter stands up and everyone shuts up. Peter decides the issue by relating his experience with the Gentiles where he baptized the household of Cornelius with out circumcizing them. The important thing is that when Peter spoke, the matter was settled. That was good enough for everyone including the other Apostles.
Then there is the matter in Corinth near the end of the first Century. All the Apostles are dead with the possible exception of John. Corinth has a problem which, like Antioch they cannot solve themselves. They too seek a higher power to resolve their dispute. So who do they go to? They go to Clement who is the bishop of Rome. They recognized Clement as the successor to Peter and as the one who held the office of universal bishop. Clement weighs in on the matter and the dispute dissolves. There are other examples of the early church looking to Rome for guidance and clarification but you get the idea. The first Vatican council did not pull this out of a hat like some magician’s trick. This was the way it was from the beginning.
and have been studying French consistently from grade five on. I know about gender all too well. 
Why we have “le clé” (“the key”) but “la porte” (“the door”) is beyond me.