J
jimmy
Guest
Both, he built it on Peter because of his faith. Here is something another church father says that is very relevant. It was said about the statement of Chrysostom.
christdot.org/story2811.php#tag23
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
I posted this so that they would not be surprised by a church father quote that showed it being on the faith. That is in no way contradictory to the faith. What is contradictory is assuming that it is only on the faith. This is a quote from the same guy that gave the quote I gave above. Speaking about Peter.
“He received his name for the unchangeableness and immobility of his faith; and when all were asked in common, he says, leaping forth before the others: ‘Thou art the Christ,’ etc, when he was entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
J
jimmy
Guest
I actually gave a link to an anti-Catholic site here, sorry about that. I was looking for a specific quote and I went to this site by accident. It is not what I meant. Here is a catholic page on Chysostom.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm
P
petra
Guest
I’m not certain if the gender difference in words was a factor, but St. Augustine wrote that Peter was not the Rock to which Christ referred in Matt. 16:18, but rather the Rock was Christ Himself. The following is a quote from another post on this forum:
These writings were part of Augustine’s later works in which he corrected previous errors in his doctrine, among which was the error that the Church was built upon Peter.
C
challenger
Guest
Augustine and the Papacy: cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm
P
petra
Guest
Thank you for the link–this is a great resource. I’m not familiar with either the author or the person he is responding to. The first author, Webster, was apparently trying to demonstrate that Augustine had changed previous views regarding the primacy of Peter, and at the end of his life documented corrections to his previous views. The author of this article, responding to Webster, is attempting to demonstrate that no conclusion can be reached about Augustine’s dismissal of the primacy of Peter because Augustine had also written in favor of the primacy of Peter.
However the chronology of Augustine’s writings cannot be overlooked. The author of this article cited early writings of Augustine. I did not see any quotations that postdated the Retractions. Any ambiguity about Augustine’s view is cleared up in his late writings. The very title “Retractions” indicates that he changed his view on issues. It is his final view on these matters that has weight, not earlier views that he repudiated or clarified ambiguity.
M
mtr01
Guest
I bolded that statement because (I believe) you misread the title of Augustine’s work. It is not Retractions, it is Retractations. Augustine did not repudiate or change any of his views in that work. You also have to remember that the for the Church Fathers, it was not either/or, but both/and. For Augustine, Peter was the rock solely because Christ was also the rock – Peter got his “rockness” from Christ. Furthermore, Peter’s “confession of faith” could not be separated from Peter himself. All three views are endorsed by the Catholic Church today.
For what it’s worth here is the quote from Retractations (1:21):
“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed AMBROSE, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”
You can see all three interpretations I mentioned within the one passage. It is also important to remember that Augustine emphasized different thing when writing against different heresies. For example, writing against the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians he emphasized the role of Christ , hence the prominence of Christ as rock. It doesn’t diminish Peter, it emphasizes Christ: Peter-rock is dependent on Christ-rock, and that’s why “Peter having been named after this rock…” Ultimately, Augustine does not push one interpretation over the other, but “let’s the reader choose” which is more likely.
P
petra
Guest
Retractions and retractations mean the same thing. His writings are actually referenced both ways.
So was Augustine advocating that Matt. 16:18 is open to personal interpretation?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
All passages are open to personal interpretation so long as the interpretation does not conflict with the teaching of the Caholic Church.
The more interesting question is what did Augusine mean by saying ‘you are Peter, not you are rock’. Augustine knew Greek, and could pick out an Aramaic transliteration very easily.
I will have to find the original language copy of the passage in question to find out what was said, using what words.
Also, and probably more importantly, Augustine is referring to something already written. He is not adding a NEW interpretation here but recalling two interpretations that he has previously used.
The context of the earlier statements is being assumed, and since he is quoting himself without the original context confusion is easily possible.
Augustine accepts that BOTH of his previous views are acceptable. He does not favor one over the other.
I would also point out that several words in the translation of Augustine’s work indicate that it is old enough to be complicating matters by the vice of not being everyday American English.
(e.g. Confession is a traditional word used in translation, but it has a different connotation than the modern english word. etc.).
The more interesting question is what did Augusine mean by saying ‘you are Peter, not you are rock’. Augustine knew Greek, and could pick out an Aramaic transliteration very easily.
I will have to find the original language copy of the passage in question to find out what was said, using what words.
Also, and probably more importantly, Augustine is referring to something already written. He is not adding a NEW interpretation here but recalling two interpretations that he has previously used.
The context of the earlier statements is being assumed, and since he is quoting himself without the original context confusion is easily possible.
Augustine accepts that BOTH of his previous views are acceptable. He does not favor one over the other.
I would also point out that several words in the translation of Augustine’s work indicate that it is old enough to be complicating matters by the vice of not being everyday American English.
(e.g. Confession is a traditional word used in translation, but it has a different connotation than the modern english word. etc.).
M
mercygate
Guest
Can we go back to the subject of this thread? I was asking about the specific use of the Petros/petra explication to undermine the primacy of Peter.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Sorry Mercygate,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my intention:
I have traced the language back to 1945 so far, and have found some references which seem to indicate the debate may go back to the reformation.
The misquoting of Augustine would be one possible way that this Petros/Petra would have started. (e.g. your original post).
Petros, Petra are greek. Augustine knew greek (though not really well) and Latin. (Which often borrows greek words.)
That is what bothered me about the quote that is being shown and why I was interested in it.
There is also one other aspect of the two words that bothers me:
Petra is not only feminine, but possibly a collective noun.
(e.g. a noun which although used in the singular, may in fact be plural. – perhaps referring to the descendants of Peter? ).
I wan’t to definitively know the limit of interpretation for Petra myself.
I often don’t write enough to show that I am trying to stay on topic.
my apology.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my intention:
I have traced the language back to 1945 so far, and have found some references which seem to indicate the debate may go back to the reformation.
The misquoting of Augustine would be one possible way that this Petros/Petra would have started. (e.g. your original post).
Petros, Petra are greek. Augustine knew greek (though not really well) and Latin. (Which often borrows greek words.)
That is what bothered me about the quote that is being shown and why I was interested in it.
There is also one other aspect of the two words that bothers me:
Petra is not only feminine, but possibly a collective noun.
(e.g. a noun which although used in the singular, may in fact be plural. – perhaps referring to the descendants of Peter? ).
I wan’t to definitively know the limit of interpretation for Petra myself.
I often don’t write enough to show that I am trying to stay on topic.
my apology.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Huiou Theou:
It would be great to have the sources as a means of refutation. Also, if you find more, please continue to keep us updated.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
From what I have discovered so far, the gender argument was not from any of the reformers themselves. They were more preoccupied with a pluralistic interpretation of authority and the identification of the pope with “the antichrist”.
That would indicate that the debate started at a later date.
None of the bible commentaries (protestant or Catholic) I have checked cite a source for the origin of the controversy but merely take it as a common protestant polemic.
It has been common for a LONG time, but does not show up in the few very old commentaries which are available to me.
The suggestion is that this particular argument is probably less than 200 years old.
I’m going to try the AAA forum to see if anyone there has the date.
That would indicate that the debate started at a later date.
None of the bible commentaries (protestant or Catholic) I have checked cite a source for the origin of the controversy but merely take it as a common protestant polemic.
It has been common for a LONG time, but does not show up in the few very old commentaries which are available to me.
The suggestion is that this particular argument is probably less than 200 years old.
I’m going to try the AAA forum to see if anyone there has the date.
M
mercygate
Guest
Huiou Theou:
Now, why didn’t I think of that? :bowdown2:
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
May I ask, mercygate, did you try the AAA forum? 
M
mercygate
Guest
Huiou Theou:
No – but I see you didn’t either, so I will!May I ask, mercygate, did you try the AAA forum?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Well,
I have exhausted all the college linked databases, journals, and commentaries, dictionaries, etc. that are available to me.
(and even the paper based indecies…)
Whoever started petros/petra gender arguments is NOT a prominent scholar, nor a major figure in biblical languages. That in and of itself is a bit of ammo.
( Ask your opponent how they know the words have different meanings. They need to cite a reliable source who can demonstrate the difference rather than just state the ‘factoid’ )
There are some references to it in English/Greek dictionaries which indicate that the origin of the petros/petra distinction (which was not known to Luther et. all) is from ancient Greek poetry. In general they mean Homer, as in the Illad and the odessy. I checked some of the references and it would appear that not only does petros mean movable stone, but there are other instances where petra means not large rock, but movable sized stone !
I am going to actually find the verses from the Homer that show the distinction. This finding, if it bears out, increases my suspicion that petra is a collective noun. Collective nouns are inheriently ambiguous.
Since mercygate is asking the AAA, I’ll have to check there too.
There is nothing more to check except book references, eg. “the development of the papacy”, 1954 and the like.
That’s a library of congress type search (for me) and will take a long time. (Longer than this thread will live).
If anyone has it, check for a commentary by G. Campell morgan, 1945.
Look for a commentary on Matthew.
That is the oldest potential reference I have found, and I can’t verify it yet. Everything else is null. Like looking for a needle in a haystack!
I have exhausted all the college linked databases, journals, and commentaries, dictionaries, etc. that are available to me.
(and even the paper based indecies…)
Whoever started petros/petra gender arguments is NOT a prominent scholar, nor a major figure in biblical languages. That in and of itself is a bit of ammo.
( Ask your opponent how they know the words have different meanings. They need to cite a reliable source who can demonstrate the difference rather than just state the ‘factoid’ )
There are some references to it in English/Greek dictionaries which indicate that the origin of the petros/petra distinction (which was not known to Luther et. all) is from ancient Greek poetry. In general they mean Homer, as in the Illad and the odessy. I checked some of the references and it would appear that not only does petros mean movable stone, but there are other instances where petra means not large rock, but movable sized stone !
I am going to actually find the verses from the Homer that show the distinction. This finding, if it bears out, increases my suspicion that petra is a collective noun. Collective nouns are inheriently ambiguous.
Since mercygate is asking the AAA, I’ll have to check there too.
There is nothing more to check except book references, eg. “the development of the papacy”, 1954 and the like.
That’s a library of congress type search (for me) and will take a long time. (Longer than this thread will live).
If anyone has it, check for a commentary by G. Campell morgan, 1945.
Look for a commentary on Matthew.
That is the oldest potential reference I have found, and I can’t verify it yet. Everything else is null. Like looking for a needle in a haystack!
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I still haven’t found the name of the person, but I have found some more information during my search on the nature of the Greek word Petros/petra.
In early greek, the feminine gender was indicated by a long vowel (Eta sounds like Aytah-or-EEtah depending on your school) which over time was shortened to (alpha).
Most of the Petros / Petra arguments are based on the pseudo-fact that Petra means large immovable mass of rock, while Petros means a little stone. The examples of this come from early Greek poetry (e.g. Homer). I have found comments which if over-read by someone who has not studied early Greek poetry could lead to the conclusion often held by protestants on petros/petra. The photos of the greek are from books dated around 1900. (Way out of copyright).
The Greek words in question as they will appear in the pictures to be appended are as follows.
πετρη πετρηι-Homeric greek feminine forms of rock. (Petra)
πετον πετρωι-Homeric Greek masculine forms of rock. (Petros)
The variations in the endings have to do with the part of speech, but do not affect the meaning of the word but only its relation to the rest of the sentence.
Eg. pick up a a rock, vs. throw a rock. etc.
In early greek, the feminine gender was indicated by a long vowel (Eta sounds like Aytah-or-EEtah depending on your school) which over time was shortened to (alpha).
Most of the Petros / Petra arguments are based on the pseudo-fact that Petra means large immovable mass of rock, while Petros means a little stone. The examples of this come from early Greek poetry (e.g. Homer). I have found comments which if over-read by someone who has not studied early Greek poetry could lead to the conclusion often held by protestants on petros/petra. The photos of the greek are from books dated around 1900. (Way out of copyright).
The Greek words in question as they will appear in the pictures to be appended are as follows.
πετρη πετρηι-Homeric greek feminine forms of rock. (Petra)
πετον πετρωι-Homeric Greek masculine forms of rock. (Petros)
The variations in the endings have to do with the part of speech, but do not affect the meaning of the word but only its relation to the rest of the sentence.
Eg. pick up a a rock, vs. throw a rock. etc.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Well the Jpeg pictures didn’t upload. I’ll post them on my home site later.
Here is what the Greek looks like:
The Illiad chapter7. ~270-280
Αινειας, μεγα εργον,
ενθα κεν Αινειας μεν επεσσυμενον βαλε πετρωι
η κορυθ ηε σακος, το οι ηρκεσε λυγρον ολεθρον, …
Notice the word for rock here is masculine. So according to the protestant concept it ought to be a small movable rock.
In this passage, the hero is Aenas:
Aenas did a mighty work, that two men - as men go now - couldn’t lift, – the thing lifted is a rock which he will try to bash his enemies head in with. So Petros is a movable rock, but by no means is it necessarily very small.
– Continued when I get another moment to type –
Here is what the Greek looks like:
The Illiad chapter7. ~270-280
Αινειας, μεγα εργον,
ο ου δυο γ ανδρε φεροιεν, οιοι νυν βροτοι εισ . ο δε μιν ρεα παλλε και οιοςενθα κεν Αινειας μεν επεσσυμενον βαλε πετρωι
η κορυθ ηε σακος, το οι ηρκεσε λυγρον ολεθρον, …
Notice the word for rock here is masculine. So according to the protestant concept it ought to be a small movable rock.
In this passage, the hero is Aenas:
Aenas did a mighty work, that two men - as men go now - couldn’t lift, – the thing lifted is a rock which he will try to bash his enemies head in with. So Petros is a movable rock, but by no means is it necessarily very small.
– Continued when I get another moment to type –
M
mercygate
Guest
Huiou Theou:
When you have finished this, you will have a tidy little body of knowledge to wrap up and publish in *Apologetics Quarterly. * Or maybe Peter Stravinskas’ new publication, *The Catholic Response. *
Huiou – you are a miracle!
When you have finished this, you will have a tidy little body of knowledge to wrap up and publish in *Apologetics Quarterly. * Or maybe Peter Stravinskas’ new publication, *The Catholic Response. *
- Status