Petra and Petros...?

[JohnVIII]

Nothing, my friend. But how about the fact that other parts of the NT clearly indicate that the name Peter is actually Cephas? This shows that our Lord did not name him with a Greek name, but Cephas, which the people translated in the Greek commonly spoken, just as Jesus Christ is actually Yeshu Mashiak, (or something like that).

Yes, this is definitely a valid point!

What I thought your main point before was that Aramaic makes no feminine/masculine distinction as the Greek does, and therefore the Greek distinction is not valid.

 

[joe370]

JohnVIII you say you are 96.5% Eastern Orthodox. Not 95.5 or 97.5? LOL…Just kidding around…

It made me think of certain science shows on the universe when the astrophysicist says something like: 30.5 million years ago…Where in the heck did they come up with .5? LOL

 

[JohnVIII]

He definitely didn’t use the word See which is Latin meaning sancta sedes aka holy chair. Jesus probably used the word assembly, which is expressed in Aramaic as kehala, and in Hebrew gahal, corresponding to the scriptural Greek ekklesia.

“Ecclesia” means “called-out ones”, and I think what this concept meant was explained to the Jews in the book “To the Hebrews” in Hebrews 13:10-14.

So you think maybe, if He used the word Synagogue then why not See as well?

I actually forgot that “See” meant “Chair”. This may make my speculation invalid, as Christ could have used “Chair” and that would have been understood.

BTW, in another place Christ said that the 12w apostles (Peter included of course) would sit on 12 chairs, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. So has Rome ever said that She will one day judge one of the tribes of Israel? I’d love to hear an answer to that!

OK. Does it seem reasonable to believe that Jesus probably said, you are kepha and on this kepha…?

By the way what was your answer to post #1?

In post #1 you asked:

"how many believe (or don’t believe) - that the words Petros and Petra are, respectively, the masculine and feminine of the same word rock, as opposed to being 2 different words with 2 different meanings, those being small rock contrasted with big rock?

Also, how many believe that the second rock is, grammatically speaking, referring to the first rock, that being Simon, renamed rock?"

I would say that both Petros and Petra refer to the person of Simon Peter. (The small rock/big rock interpretation is like the rapture of the Church, that is, it is an interpretation that was never understood as such in the history of the Church.)

The only thing is that I can’t help but wonder why St Peter would be referred to in the feminine! That’s why I thought of the See idea. Hear’s another idea: Maybe it refers to St Peter after is death, that is spiritually. In other words, St Peter is still in Rome spiritually and the Church is built upon him in this way. (“Spirit”, as you probably know, in Hebrew is feminine “Ruach”.)

Anyway, you heard my vote. Of course I don’t really know the answer.

Personally, I wonder if this verse was even ever in the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. We may never know. In one place it says that what may have been the last copy of the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was destroyed by St Clement of Alexandria because some nun said she got out of it that the Virgin Mary was “a force”.

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII you say you are 96.5% Eastern Orthodox. Not 95.5 or 97.5? LOL…Just kidding around…

It made me think of certain science shows on the universe when the astrophysicist says something like: 30.5 million years ago…Where in the heck did they come up with .5? LOL

I count 1% for each doctrine that I believe that is not the same as what the Eastern Orthodox teach. The 1/2% is because I believe in the primacy of the Pope, but only half-way.

 

[MontChevalier]

However, Greek is the language that the oldest surviving gospels are written in, as well as the language of the epistles. Despite the fact that Christ may have not spoken Greek, the Gospels might have been written in Greek because it was the lingua franca of the region.

By the way, St. Augustine even says that he himself believes that the rock (Petra) is Christ, rather than Peter who is Petros, so to say that it’s some sort of “weapon” that the Orthodox wield against the Catholics is completely incorrect. It is a legitimate patristic interpretation (and as St. Augustine also says, it really matters not if the rock is Peter or Christ).

The Aramaic version cannot be proven to be the original. It is possibly a translation from Koine Greek.

Last I checked, the Douay Rheims translation says the same thing as ‘Protestant and Orthodox bibles’ (of course, that’s because the Latin Vulgate version comes from the Koine Greek of the ‘Orthodox bible’, which you allege is incorrect):

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:18[/BIBLEDRB]

Again, that all depends on the assumption that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic instead of Greek.

And yet even though they supposedly profess that Peter is the rock, they don’t believe in the papal claims. Curious, isn’t it?

No, Aramaic is the oldest surviving, but it was Greek that grew more in number as it was the commercial language of the time. But to think that Our Lord would speak in a foreign language to an extremely nationalistic people who desired their new Israel nation to be born makes sense to you? Really? I think not. It has been said, time and time again, to the Jew first, then the Gentile.

When St. Augustine refers to rock being Christ, he means it in the context of Christ being present within the rock as its soul; its builder, its founder, if you’ve read his work in Latin, but he knows full well that Christ built his Church under St. Peter.

I allege that the Greek context of translation of Bibles is incorrect. Including Latin, Chinese, Russian, and any other language other than Aramaic. Our job as Christians is to recognize that our Lord spoke to the Chosen People within their own language, and not of that of some foreigners to the Jews of that time.

Your assumptions, it is what they are, that the Aramaic Bible is a translation of the Greek has no grounds; based solely on opinion.

The Syriac Churches are in communion with the Catholic Church, afterall. Many of them, at least. Most others who don’t are only doing so out of politics rather than reason. The same events are taking place amongst the Maronites and Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankarans. Politics. Nothing more.

-MontChevalier

 

[Marybeloved]

Nothing, my friend. But how about the fact that other parts of the NT clearly indicate that the name Peter is actually Cephas? This shows that our Lord did not name him with a Greek name, but Cephas, which the people translated in the Greek commonly spoken, j****ust as Jesus Christ is actually Yeshu Mashiak, (or something like that).

I was wrong with this example.

-Obviously Jesus is not a proper translation of Yeshua in another language, more like the name Yeshua spoken in a foreign manner or accent and taking on the “colour” or appearance of that language- Like Petros to Peter to Pierre to Pedro etc

-The better example is Mashiak (not sure of the actual spelling) to Christ which would constitute a proper translation of a name via its meaning from one language to another.

 

[joe370]

I count 1% for each doctrine that I believe that is not the same as what the Eastern Orthodox teach. The 1/2% is because I believe in the primacy of the Pope, but only half-way.

I thought you were just having some fun, but you really do have a system in place. Cool…

Don’t you think it is silly when scientist say things like 30.3 million years ago…? That’s pretty darn exact. LOL…

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, Aramaic is the oldest surviving, but it was Greek that grew more in number as it was the commercial language of the time. But to think that Our Lord would speak in a foreign language to an extremely nationalistic people who desired their new Israel nation to be born makes sense to you? Really? I think not. It has been said, time and time again, to the Jew first, then the Gentile.

I never said that Christ spoke Greek. I said that the Gospels were probably written in Greek for dissemination, as were the Epistles. Where do you have proof for Aramaic gospels being the oldest surviving Gospels? I’m almost positive that the oldest surviving copies of the Gospels are in Greek.

When St. Augustine refers to rock being Christ, he means it in the context of Christ being present within the rock as its soul; its builder, its founder, if you’ve read his work in Latin, but he knows full well that Christ built his Church under St. Peter.

So now we see what you truly believe about St. Peter and his papal successors. Nobody builds something underneath a foundation. St. Peter was a stone, firm in his faith and devotion to Christ, upon which Christ said his Church would be built, but not as some sort of Lord over the Church. There is only one Lord.

I allege that the Greek context of translation of Bibles is incorrect. Including Latin, Chinese, Russian, and any other language other than Aramaic. Our job as Christians is to recognize that our Lord spoke to the Chosen People within their own language, and not of that of some foreigners to the Jews of that time.

Well then, you are wrong, because in doing so, you throw out the interpretations every single Church Father who did not read Aramaic.

Your assumptions, it is what they are, that the Aramaic Bible is a translation of the Greek has no grounds; based solely on opinion.

That the Aramaic Gospels predate the Greek is also an opinion.

The Syriac Churches are in communion with the Catholic Church, afterall. Many of them, at least. Most others who don’t are only doing so out of politics rather than reason. The same events are taking place amongst the Maronites and Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankarans. Politics. Nothing more.

Last I checked, the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is not in union with Rome has around 6.6 million adherents. They are not some small minority separated by politics; they are separated because they, like the Pope of Alexandria with whom they are in communion, believe that Rome is in error.

As a matter of fact, the entire reason why the Syro-Malabars are in union with Rome is politics. They only entered into union after the Portuguese so nicely showed up, declared them to be heretics, burned their bibles and liturgical books and then forced them into union with Rome. Were it not for the intervention of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, the Syro-Malabars might have lost their heritage completely. Look up the Goa inquisition and the Synod of Diamper, if you are interested in seeing what ‘politics’ really looks like.

 

[Marybeloved]

So now we see what you truly believe about St. Peter and his papal successors. Nobody builds something underneath a foundation. St. Peter was a stone, firm in his faith and devotion to Christ, upon which Christ said his Church would be built, but not as some sort of Lord over the Church. There is only one Lord.

And I wonder which Christians on this Planet claim more than the one Lord? Such comments puzzle me- St. Peter is now Lord of the Church for Catholics- Is that it?

St Peter is the rock upon which the One Lord has pitched the tent of his church

St. Peter is the one to whom the One Lord has entrusted the keys of his kingdom

St. Peter is the one to whom the One Lord has entrusted the care of his sheep and his lambs

How is recognizing this will and action of this One Lord with regards to St. Peter amount to setting up another Lord? Doesn’t that also mean that the Orthodox have quite a number of Lords besides the One Lord themselves? Like…how many bishops are there in the EO communion? Such looks like the tactics of the fundamentalists- shouldn’t be resorted to by an Orthodox.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And I wonder which Christians on this Planet claim more than the one Lord? Such comments puzzle me- St. Peter is now Lord of the Church for Catholics- Is that it?

St Peter is the rock upon which the One Lord has pitched the tent of his church

St. Peter is the one to whom the One Lord has entrusted the keys of his kingdom

St. Peter is the one to whom the One Lord has entrusted the care of his sheep and his lambs

How is recognizing this will and action of this One Lord with regards to St. Peter amount to setting up another Lord? Doesn’t that also mean that the Orthodox have quite a number of Lords besides the One Lord themselves? Like…how many bishops are there in the EO communion? Such looks like the tactics of the fundamentalists- shouldn’t be resorted to by an Orthodox.

Honestly, after how much talk I hear about submission to the pope being necessary to be a ‘full Christian’ (i.e., a complete member of the Church), I have to wonder. Certainly, submission to the pope was not a criterion for being a member of the Church in the first millennium, nor is it part of the ancient symbol of faith, which minus the filioque, we hold in common, so why is it such a big deal today?

 

[Marybeloved]

Honestly, after how much talk I hear about submission to the pope being necessary to be a ‘full Christian’ (i.e., a complete member of the Church), I have to wonder. Certainly, submission to the pope was not a criterion for being a member of the Church in the first millennium.

I still fail to see how this would justify implying idolatry of Catholics. Is your definition of Lord as we apply it to Christ simply, submission to authority? Then I repeat my earlier assertion- You have many, many Lords of your own.

Don’t you believe that a Christian must be in communion with your own communion to receive the fullness of the faith? In fact your views about it are so radical and uncharitable of other non-Orthodox Christians that it definitely comes close to what you’re trying to accuse us of here.

This “full Christian” is just another strange statement- What does it even mean? Perhaps this is how you view non-Orthodox Christians, it’s not how we Catholics view non-Catholic Christians. For us a Christian is a validly baptized person who keeps to the faith- whether it’s the fullness of the faith or only part of it. It doesn’t make him 1/2 or 3/4 a christian, his lack of full communion with the true church (which communion is defined by holding to Peter’s see in Rome) only means he cannot access all the good things that are put there by Christ for him. Valid baptism and faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity makes you Christian.

In fact I ought to add that if we were to accept such terms “Full Christian” most of us would be fledglings and no more- For a Christian is a follower of Christ, therefore those who follow him most perfectly would be the full Christians (We know most of them are in Heaven where its impossible to sin against Christ) Then it would be impossible to judge who among us is more Christian (Holy) than who .

 

[GaryTaylor]

First case is Biblical with St-Peter and Papal Infallibility. And it came with Circumcision. And whom did the Apostles come to including [St Paul] umm…why that of course would be St Peter. And his decision was guided by…well of course the Holy Spirit.

The councils are well and fine when you want to build a strawman about the Mystical Body of Christ. Truth is one only need to read and clearly understand the Bible.

The Keys are pretty clear from Isaiah 22:22 which belonged to David. Matthew opening with his linking David to Christ, then Christ giving the Keys to St Peter. Which is again confirmed in Revelations.

The fact that St Paul and St Peter argued is not an unknown, and also Biblical. In the end St Paul gave way to St Peters decision. St Peter wasn’t the smartest as St Paul was, nor was he the most Mystical as St John was. He may have been the weakest link. But yes God always choose’s the weak to confound the rest. And in Scripture through Divine Providence that was St Peter. As was also seen at the Council of Jerusalem.

Council of Nicea holds no weight over the Bible or the Mystical Body. The council was to fight Arianism, which is alive and well today. Some of the tragedys which resulted from that council took over 50- years to correct. Some still exist. That bears no weight with St-Peter and the Mystical Body of Christ in what was already defined by God in scripture.

Peace

 

[Gara3987]

However, Greek is the language that the oldest surviving gospels are written in, as well as the language of the epistles…

This is correct that the oldest codex that we have is in Greek, however from various sources we know that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.

“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7

“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son,’ and ‘for he shall be called a Nazarene.’ ” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3).

“Pantaenus …was sent to India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, where he found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the advent of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew, and on his return to Alexandria he brought this with him written in Hebrew characters.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 36).

As for the other Gospels, we can only assume that they were originally written in Greek. An example, when Mark wrote the Gospel, he was writing for the Christians of Rome and so he may have originally written the Gospel of Mark in Latin.

Not only that, the transliteration of Keefo is written in Greek; Κηφᾶς. (Joan. i. 42)

Last I checked, the Douay Rheims translation says the same thing as ‘Protestant and Orthodox bibles’ (of course, that’s because the Latin Vulgate version comes from the Koine Greek of the ‘Orthodox bible’, which you allege is incorrect)… And yet even though they supposedly profess that Peter is the rock, they don’t believe in the papal claims. Curious, isn’t it?

I have an actual Douay Rheims and a Challoner Edition. Within the Douay Rheims, they have some interesting annotations:

And the simple may learn by St. Basil’s words, how the case standeth. Though (saith he) *Peter be a rock, yet he is not a rock as Christ is. For Christ is the true unmoveable rock of himself, Peter is unmoveable by Christ the rock. For Jesus doth communicate and impart his dignities, not voiding himself of them, but holding them to himself, bestoweth them also upon others. He is the light, and yet 2. You are the light: he is the Priest, and yet he 3. maketh Priests: he is the rock, and he made a rock.

And though St. Augustine sometimes refer the word (Petra) to Christ in this sentence (which no doubt he did because the terminations in Latin are diverse, and because he examined not the natural of the original words which Christ spake, not of the Greek, and therefore the Adversaries which otherwise flee to the tongues, should not in this case allege him) yet he never denieth but Peter also is the Rock and head of the Church, saying that himself expounded it of Peter in many places, and allegeth also St. Ambrose for the same in his hymn which the Church singeth. And to do we allege the holy Council of Chalcedon, Act. 1 pg. 110. Tertullian, de praescript., Origen, Ho 5 in Exo., St. Cyprian, e unit. Ec., St. Hilary, Con. 16 in Matt., St. Ambrose, Ser. 47. 68. li. 6 in c. 9. Luca., St. Hierom, Li. 1 in Jouin & c. 2 Esa & in c. 16 Hier., St. Epiphanius, In Anchor, St. Chrysostom, Ho. 55 in Mat., St. Cyril, Li. 2 c. 12. com. in Io., St. Leo, Ep. 89, St. Gregory, Li. 4 ep. 32 ind. 13., and others: every one of them saying expressly that the Church was founded and builded upon Peter. For though sometimes they say the Church to be builded on Peter’s faith, yet they mean not (as our Adversaries do unlearnedly take them) that it should be builded upon faith either separated from the man, or in any other man: but upon faith as in him who here confessed that faith.Therefore St. Jerome to Damascus taketh this Rock not to be Peter’s person only, but his successors and his Chair.(saith he) following no chief or principal but Christ, join myself to the communion of Peter’s chair, upon that rock I know the Church was built. And St. Leo, Our Lord would the Sacrament or mystery of this gift so to pertain unto the office of all the Apostles, that he placed it principally in blessed St. Peter the chief of all the Apostles, that from him as from a certain head he might pour out his gifts, as it were through the whole body: that he might understand himself to be an alien form the divine mystery that should presume to revolt from the solidity or steadfastness of Peter. --Hiero. ep. 7, to. 2.

*At any rate, what I find to be most fascinating; Jesus is the Rock (II Reg. xxii. 2-3)...and this is why his changing Peters name to "Rock" (Joan. i. 42) is so significant. He is changing Peter's name and authority to be the name and authority of God on earth; as being the Vicar of Christ.

Pax Christi

 

[Cavaradossi]

I still fail to see how this would justify implying idolatry of Catholics. Is your definition of Lord as we apply it to Christ simply, submission to authority? Then I repeat my earlier assertion- You have many, many Lords of your own.

Don’t you believe that a Christian must be in communion with your own communion to receive the fullness of the faith? In fact your views about it are so radical and uncharitable of other non-Orthodox Christians that it definitely comes close to what you’re trying to accuse us of here.

This “full Christian” is just another strange statement- What does it even mean? Perhaps this is how you view non-Orthodox Christians, it’s not how we Catholics view non-Catholic Christians. For us a Christian is a validly baptized person who keeps to the faith- whether it’s the fullness of the faith or only part of it. It doesn’t make him 1/2 or 3/4 a christian, his lack of full communion with the true church (which communion is defined by holding to Peter’s see in Rome) only means he cannot access all the good things that are put there by Christ for him. Valid baptism and faith in Christ and the Blessed Trinity makes you Christian.

In fact I ought to add that if we were to accept such terms “Full Christian” most of us would be fledglings and no more- For a Christian is a follower of Christ, therefore those who follow him most perfectly would be the full Christians (We know most of them are in Heaven where its impossible to sin against Christ) Then it would be impossible to judge who among us is more Christian (Holy) than who .

Not idolatry, just making submission to the pope some sort of quasi-doctrine. I’ll never understand how the importance of belief in the papacy’s authority never appears in any doctrinal definition of the ecumenical councils of the first millennium, despite the many challenges to papal authority which popped up, if it was truly an article of right faith in the ancient Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Early Church?..Bible!

Acts 15:2 “…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that

Acts 15:7 "After much debate had taken place, ‘Peter’ got up and said to them,

‘My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…’ "

Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told “The whole assembly fell silent…”

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21 “After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James assents to what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.

Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision “after much debate” which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. By standing Peter adds a certain affirmation and enforcement to what he is about to declare. The fact that the “whole assembly fell silent” after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.)

(defendingthebride.com)

What was Peter called…

Galatians 2:11-14 “And when ‘Kephas’ came to Antioch”

Galatian 2:9 he speaks of ‘Kephas’ sending Paul out.

The Greek interpretation really isn’t an agruement. What language did Christ speak on the Cross?

 

[GaryTaylor]

What Apostle does Christ chose in Matthew…St Peter.

What Apostle does Christ build his Church on…St Peter

What Apostle receives the Keys of the Kingdom…St Peter

What Apostle does Christ appear to first after death…St Peter

What Apostle is mentioned the most in scripture…St Peter

What Apostle speaks at Pentecost…St Peter

What Apostle settles the debates of the Apostles…St Peter

Should we go on?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Early Church?..Bible!

Acts 15:2 “…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that

Acts 15:7 "After much debate had taken place, ‘Peter’ got up and said to them,

‘My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…’ "

Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told “The whole assembly fell silent…”

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21 “After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.”

However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James assents to what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.

Perhaps you should read the verses you quoted again. James does not assent to what Peter proclaims, he judges it (and finds that it is correct). James, not Peter, had the final say in the council, because he was leading it. The Douay Rheims translation makes it even more clear, as in the Douay Rheims, James even says, “I judge.”

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 15:13-19[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision “after much debate” which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. By standing Peter adds a certain affirmation and enforcement to what he is about to declare. The fact that the “whole assembly fell silent” after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote “Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.)

St. Augustine never said that, he said, “Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam: inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est: utinam aliquando finiatur error! Ergo ut advertant monemus, ut instruantur docemus, ut mutentur oremus,” which in context says that Two councils on the heresy of Pelagianism were sent to Rome, and Rome wrote back in agreement, so the issue on whether Pelagianaism was heresy was finished.

What was Peter called…

Galatians 2:11-14 “And when ‘Kephas’ came to Antioch”

Galatian 2:9 he speaks of ‘Kephas’ sending Paul out.

Galatians 2 also happens to be one of the least flattering chapters involving Peter in the entire New Testament, so unflattering that French Jesuit, Jean Hardouin, argued that Cephas and Peter were two different people.

[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 2:10-14[/BIBLEDRB]

I’m not arguing that the interpretation of Peter being the rock is invalid (which you guys keep thinking that I am); I’m arguing that other interpretations based on the linguistic peculiarities of Greek are also valid (unless we wish to just ignore the Church Fathers).

 

[Barbkw]

In the Old Testament, Moses held a position in the Jewish faith, it was referred to as the “seat of Moses.” It was an office that King David filled. Jesus additionally gave that office a set of keys to “bind and loose”.

The answer is evident in “Christian” society today.

What has non-Catholic Christianity begun to allow in their churches without one central voice to follow concerning faith and morals?

“Cultural Christianity” allows for artifical contraception, abortion on demand, sterilization, normalized homosexual acts, blessed homosexual marriages in churches, sexually active homosexual pastors, scientific use of embryos, etc.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not arguing that the interpretation of Peter being the rock is invalid (which you guys keep thinking that I am); I’m arguing that other interpretations based on the linguistic peculiarities of Greek are also valid (unless we wish to just ignore the Church Fathers).

Which ECF, and what year? And what interpretations?

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)
“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.):
“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret)

The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):
“Peter, the Rock of the Church …” (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). “Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).

Origen (230-250 A.D.):
“See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …” (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

“Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded.” (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

“Peter, upon whom is built Christ’s Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.” (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)

St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):
“For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring …” (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

“God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord’s word, upon a Rock …” (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

“There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord’s authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance” (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church)

“Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church …” (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).

St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):
“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 and fountain from which all My teaching flows.” (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).

“Peter, who was called Kephas, he who was captured on the sea shore, and who received testimony from the great Shepherd, that ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church.’” (Ephraem T. iiii. Gr. De Sacred).

"That Rock which He set up that Satan might stumble thereon, Satan, on the other hand, wished to put this Rock in the way of the Lord that He might stumble upon it, when Peter said, ‘Far be it from Thee, Lord.’ [Matt 16:22-23] (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV

Peace.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jean Hardouin? And we should hang our hat on him why?

Jesuit, and historian; b. at Quimper, Brittany, 23 Dec., 1646, son of a bookseller of that town; d. at Paris, 3 Sept., 1729. He entered the novitiate of the Society, 25 Sept., 1660; and was professor of belles-lettres and rhetoric, and afterwards taught positive theology for fifteen years. He became librarian at the Jesuit College of Louis-le-Grand in Paris, where he succeeded Pere Garnier whose biography he published in 1684. His first scientific work was an article published in the “Journal des Scavans”, 10 March, 1681, on the meaning of a passage in Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXXIII, iii). His books are numerous, but many of them are ill-balanced and full of errors. Others, however, have won for him a place among men of learning.

“New Advent”

Peace