Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[aussie_stockman]

.Christ called Simon “Kepha”, which means a large rock/boulder, and is gender-nuetral. This translated into “Petra” (which is NOT gender-nuetral, rather femine) in the Greek that the Gospel was translated into, and to prevent from presenting Simon as receiving a feminine name, the writer who translated the Gospel into that Greek used “Petros”.

]

Well, from what I’ve read, “kepha” doesn’t mean large rock or boulder, and is a feminine noun…

This is the definition of kepha from Jastrows Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature (considered the most comprehensive Aramaic dictionary ever made):

rock, stone, ball…; “which rock (when bored) will give forth water and which…”;
pearls, jewels; fire-balls; hail-stones; “…thou must remove these stones…”;
kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground);
weighed the stones;
precious stones, jewelry; amber; “has he jewelry suspended on it” (his opinion) ie, must his opinion be accepted?;
gave jewelry in trust; give me my jewelry back;

The Atour Aramaic lexicon and concordance shows kepha as feminine.
(see atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=rock&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0)

Also, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon database (CAL) shows kepha as feminine:
(see cal1.cn.huc.edu/)

Definition of petros (Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon):

A. stone used by warriors; (a stone) to produce fire, (a stone) of a boulder forming a landmark
2. ‘leave no stone unturned’; of imperturbability ;a kind of reed

Definition of petra: (Liddell-Scott-Jones):

A. rock; freq. of cliffs, ledges, etc. by the sea; free from rocks, of a beach; also, rocky peak or ridge - of Caucasus - of Parnassus - of the Acropolis
2. a hollow rock, i.e. a cave, cave in the rock with a double entrance, down to virgin rock,
3. mass of rock or boulder
4. stone as material
distd. from πετρος (q. v.), which is v.l. in X.l.c.; ??? shd. be read in S.Ph.272 ; the distn. is minimized by Gal.12.194.

NOTE: it says petra is distinguished from petros… Two different words…

Anyway, this is just info…

I have my doubts that petros (masc) was used rather than petra (fem) for Simon bar Jona, based on nothing but “gender considerations”.

There are MANY Greek male names that have feminine endings, like Akakia, Athanase, Cintia, Dorota, Idouma, Nikola, Phtha, Rhama, Zara and Zorba…

BTW - Akakia itself is also a feminine noun, meaning “guilelessness” or “innocense”… This shows that a feminine noun can indeed be used as a masculine name…

Same thing happens in Spanish… The female name Rocio is actually a masculine noun meaning “dew”… It is not “feminine-ized” by changing it to “Rocia”. Besides, if you changed it from Rocio to Rocia, well, you’re changing the meaning from “dew” to “spill”… Not good…

Thats what happens when you substitute “petros” for “petra”… it changes from being a “rock mass” (petra) to being a “stone” (petros)

So, for now - I’m still thinking that this particular issue isn’t yet resolved for me…

Ahhhh – I appreciate very much the other “exegesis” you took time to write…

I think, though, for me, it’s all still “problematic”.

I mean, to me, it’s still looking like “petros” and “petra” aren’t referring to the same thing (Simon bar Jona).

Plus - in the Greek - the quote actually says “you are Petros, and upon this, the petra, I will build my church”… (OK, yeh, I supplied the commas… they don’t use those in Koine Greek).

I don’t know why English translations don’t put that “this - THE petra” in there, but just google for a Greek English Interlinear bible and you’ll see what I’m talking about…

Not sure whats up with that…

 

[57Bill]

pablope, 57bill, ahs -

I’m just saying, these guys had no idea of that stuff. They just knew Jesus.

SO - my question to you guys is: Does the Catholic Church even consider those guys as real believers? As brothers in Christ?

Thanks!

aussie

Sorry for taking a day or two to respond…I don’t subscribe and am hit or miss throughout my work day.

IMO, yes.

Even though Apostolic succession is much more than just implied in the Bible. It would take revelation by the Holy Spirit in these people to fully understand. Mostly because there was no Oral Tradition, “just” their bible.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Sorry for taking a day or two to respond…I don’t subscribe and am hit or miss throughout my work day.

IMO, yes.

Even though Apostolic succession is much more than just implied in the Bible. It would take revelation by the Holy Spirit in these people to fully understand. Mostly because there was no Oral Tradition, “just” their bible.

Interestingly enough, I’ve grown to have a rather high regard for Apostolic succession since I’ve been reading up on the Catholic church. It’s not something that was ever part of my “background”, but really, I’ve grown to believe that it’s a very fundamental thing for the “body of believers”…

I’m thinking (and, merely pondering this thought) that maybe “being saved by the Grace of God in Jesus Christ” IS, in itself, an “individual” thing, BUT - that God does indeed have a “design” for what I guess one might call “corporate worship” (ie, the church)…

But - please don’t ask me to explain that notion. I’m merely pondering that in the light of what I’ve been reading about Apostolic succession… I’m running across a TON of “new concepts” (that is, “new” for me…)

 

[LionHeart777]

hey aussie,

I think many if not all of these points were made in another thread but I’ll reiterate:

You said:

“There are MANY Greek male names that have feminine endings, like Akakia, Athanase, Cintia, Dorota, Idouma, Nikola, Phtha, Rhama, Zara and Zorba…”

Can you establish that this is true in the 1st century A.D.?

for example, here is a list of ancient Greek names (divided by sex).

I just skimmed, and I didn’t catch one that is feminine in the boys column, but anyone can double check.

Also, you said,

“So, petros was indeed used as the name for Simon, and according to LSJ, it seems to signify ‘smallish’ rocks. Petra is always used as a noun in scripture, and according to LSJ, aways refers to ‘a rock mass’.”

Here is your citation of the LSJ for:

"Definition of petra: (Liddell-Scott-Jones):

A. rock; freq. of cliffs, ledges, etc. by the sea; free from rocks, of a beach; also, rocky peak or ridge - of Caucasus - of Parnassus - of the Acropolis
2. a hollow rock, i.e. a cave, cave in the rock with a double entrance, down to virgin rock,
3. mass of rock or boulder
4. stone as material
distd. from πετρος (q. v.), which is v.l. in X.l.c.; ??? shd. be read in S.Ph.272 ; the distn. is minimized by Gal.12.194."

(emphasis mine)

Did you catch that part? If you go to the entry online and click on “Gal.12.194” you will see that is it referring to a text (Galenus Med.), and that it seems to be saying that this text minimizes the distinction between petra and petros.

Also, regarding your comments for Petros, here is the entry from the LSJ:

πέτρος, ὁ (in later Poets ἡ, AP7.274 (Honest.), 479 (Theodorid.)), stone (distd. from πέτρα, q. v.); in Hom., used by warriors, λάζετο πέτρον μάρμαρον ὀκριόεντα Il.16.734; βαλὼν μυλοειδέϊ πέτρῳ 7.270, cf. 20.288, E.Andr.1128 (never in Od.); ἔδικε πέτρῳ Pi.O.10(11).72; ἄγαλμ’ Ἀΐδα ξεστὸν π. ἔμβαλον στέρνῳ Id.N.10.67; νιφάδι γογγύλων πέτρων A.Fr.199.7; ἐκ χερῶν πέτροισιν ἠράσσοντο Id.Pers.460; λευσθῆναι πέτροις S.OC435; πέτρους ἐπεκυλίνδουν X.HG3.5.20, etc.; ἐν πέτροισι πέτρον ἐκτρίβων, to produce fire, S.Ph.296; of a boulder forming a landmark, Id.OC1595; τόνδ’ ἀνέθηκα π. ἀειράμενος IG42(1).125 (Epid., iii B. C.).
2. prov., πάντα κινῆσαι πέτρον ‘leave no stone unturned’, E.Heracl.1002, cf. Pl.Lg.843a; of imperturbability, καὶ γὰρ ἂν πέτρου φύσιν σύ γ’ ὀργάνειας S.OT334, cf. E.Med.28.
II. a kind of reed, Peripl.M.Rubr.65.—The usual Prose word is λίθος.

Source: tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=85305&context=lsj&action=from-search

Emphasis mine

This, it seems, indicates more than a ‘smallish stone’.

Again, there are Protestant scholars who disagree that that these 2 words can’t **be used **more or less interchangeably and the LSJ entry for petra seems to back this claim up (see my argument above):

However, other scholars (such as Keener, Carson, and Ridderbos) argue that the pevtra is Peter. Against Caragounis, Ridderbos argues that the difference between pevtra and Pevtro" is rather insignificant. He asserts:

The most likely explanation for the change from petros (“Peter”) to petra is that petra was the normal word for “rock.” Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but Petros. The word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra, as it literally meant “stone.” Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the church. The words “on this rock [petra]” indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church. Only Peter is mentioned in this verse, and the pun on his name of course applied to him alone.91

Cullman agrees with Ridderbos’ assessment. He also maintains that since the word pevtra is feminine in the Greek and has a feminine ending (-a), the New Testament chose a less usual Greek word which had the masculine ending (-o") for the apostle: Pevtro".92 Cullman goes on to state that there is no essential difference between pevtra and Pevtro", for even though pevtra denoted a “live rock” and Pevtro" meant a “detached stone," the distinction was not strictly observed.93 In several instances, pevtra is used with the meaning “piece of rock” or “stone.”94

Source: bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-examination-matthew-1618

Also, can you separate St. Peter from his profession of faith?

Regards,

Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

I should clarify,

I said:

“Again, there are Protestant scholars who disagree that that these 2 words can’t be used more or less interchangeably…”

To clarify, it seems to me from the citation I gave that they disagree with the position that petros and petra cannot be used more or less interchangeably. They seem to say they can be…

 

[aussie_stockman]

hey aussie,

I think many if not all of these points were made in another thread but I’ll reiterate:

You said:

“There are MANY Greek male names that have feminine endings, like Akakia, Athanase, Cintia, Dorota, Idouma, Nikola, Phtha, Rhama, Zara and Zorba…”

Can you establish that this is true in the 1st century A.D.?

for example, here is a list of ancient Greek names (divided by sex).

I just skimmed, and I didn’t catch one that is feminine in the boys column, but anyone can double check.

Also, you said,

“So, petros was indeed used as the name for Simon, and according to LSJ, it seems to signify ‘smallish’ rocks. Petra is always used as a noun in scripture, and according to LSJ, aways refers to ‘a rock mass’.”

Here is your citation of the LSJ for:

"Definition of petra: (Liddell-Scott-Jones):

A. rock; freq. of cliffs, ledges, etc. by the sea; free from rocks, of a beach; also, rocky peak or ridge - of Caucasus - of Parnassus - of the Acropolis
2. a hollow rock, i.e. a cave, cave in the rock with a double entrance, down to virgin rock,
3. mass of rock or boulder
4. stone as material
distd. from πετρος (q. v.), which is v.l. in X.l.c.; ??? shd. be read in S.Ph.272 ; the distn. is minimized by Gal.12.194."

(emphasis mine)

Did you catch that part? If you go to the entry online and click on “Gal.12.194” you will see that is it referring to a text (Galenus Med.), and that it seems to be saying that this text minimizes the distinction between petra and petros.

Also, regarding your comments for Petros, here is the entry from the LSJ:

Source: tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=85305&context=lsj&action=from-search

Emphasis mine

This, it seems, indicates more than a ‘smallish stone’.

Again, there are Protestant scholars who disagree that that these 2 words can’t **be used **more or less interchangeably and the LSJ entry for petra seems to back this claim up (see my argument above):

Source: bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-examination-matthew-1618

Also, can you separate St. Peter from his profession of faith?

Regards,

Nick

Hey, Nick -

Preface: What I’m saying below is NOT meant to be “argumentative”. I’m NOT trying to “prove” a “protestant case”. I’m simply looking for some reasonable proof of the Catholic case, and thats all. Stuff like “lexicon listings” are neither Catholic nor protestant. They are what they are. Also, stuff like I’m saying immediately below about masc or fem nouns used as names is neither a Catholic nor Protestant position. It is what it is. Just remember (kindly) that I’m here to consider the Catholic faith. I’ve had a couple of friends in the last few years “convert” to Catholicism, and it’s made me tremendously curious. But, I’m a “studious” type, and I try to verify stuff…

Regarding “male names with feminine endings in the 1st Century AD”: Nope, I cant show you any male names with fem. endings from that time. My guess is that you and I both have access to the same reference materials, and the available list of names from ancient sources is simply not very exhaustive.

However, that doesn’t mean a thing. Using a masc noun as a fem name, or vice-versa, is a feature common to all genderized languages - or, at least, all that I’m aware of.

We do the same in English, even though English isn’t genderized. I’ve got a male friend named Carol. I’ve got a female friend named Morgan (which, up until very recent years, was always used as a male name). Names can be whatever Mom and Dad wants. There are no rules.

Jesus called Simon “Kepha”, which is a feminine noun. It didn’t matter. In virtually all genderized languages, it’s totally permitable.

One of the prominant Mexican drug lords is (was?) called “La Tormenta”. It’s not uncommon that a “title” like “La Tormenta” be “shortened” to simply “Tormenta”, and used as a name.

So, just because I can’t produce any examples from the very limited lists that we have available doesn’t mean a thing… It would be nice if I could, but my guess is that you could look at long lists of male names in just about any genderized language, and you’ll find fem. nouns being used as male names, and especially, you’ll find male names with fem. endings…

Regarding what some scholars say about petros and petra being used “more or less interchangeably”:

I’ve seen these assertions MANY times, but I have yet to see ANY of those scholars produce any Greek text that demonstrates the interchageabilty…

You mention this quote:

*However, other scholars (such as Keener, Carson, and Ridderbos) argue that the pevtra is Peter. Against Caragounis, Ridderbos argues that the difference between pevtra and Pevtro" is rather insignificant. He asserts:

The most likely explanation for the change from petros (“Peter”) to petra is that petra was the normal word for “rock.” Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but Petros. The word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra, as it literally meant “stone.”*

But - note - this is simply an ASSERTION. This is Ridderbos’s THEORY. This is Ridderbos’s “most likely” scenario - indicating that even HE can’t state this as “fact”. And even Ridderbos notes that “petros” literally meant “stone”.

Ridderbos is coming right out and saying that changing petra to petros changed the meaning of the word, and this is a tad problematic.

The biggest problem with this theory? How would a natural Greek reader ever KNOW that “petros” (as used for a name) was MEANT to be “petra”, but that the writer had decided to use “petros” instead?

A natural Greek reader isn’t going to look at the scripture and say "Ah, Jesus calls him ‘Petros’, but what he REALLY means is “petra with an -os ending”. No… They’re going to read “Petros”, and assume the word “petros”. I mean, petros was used in Koine Greek… It was used twice in lI Macc (which was written no earlier than 164 AD):

II Macc 1:16 And opening a privy door of the roof, they threw stones (petros) like
thunderbolts, and struck down the captain…

II Macc 4:41 They then seeing the attempt of Lysimachus, some of them caught stones (petros), some clubs, others taking handfuls of dust, that was next at hand, cast them all together upon Lysimachus…

So, a Koine Greek reader would read the word (name) “Petros”, and simply think “smallish stone”… There would be no reason on earth for them to think otherwise.

AND - more to the point: NONE of the scholars mentioned provide actual, textual evidence (as one might find in LSJ, Slater, or Autenreith) demonstrating that the words were “more or less synonymous”. They all SAY that, but I’m looking for the REASON they say that. Anybody can make “assertions”.

What I keep on seeing is “theories” and “assertions” about how it MIGHT have worked, but so far, all these theories just look like the scholars are just STRAINING to figure out a way to make “petros = petra”, as if they’re desperate to do so.

SO FAR - (and, I’m not done with investigating this) - it just LOOKS like a whole lot of “modifications” are necesary in order to somehow make petros = petra.

One has to say “ah, petros is really petra, but that wasn’t a good male name” (despite the fact that Kepha was a femine noun, perfectly acceptable as a male name)

Or they have to say “well, petros and petra were synononymous”, but then you’ll see other guys, who SUPPORT the Catholic position, saying “they were’t exact synonyms”.

Or, I’ve even read some Catholic scholar saying “Petros wasn’t a word in Koine Greek” (but, it clearly was, as shown in II Macc)

So, I’ve seen a LOT of “theories”, but I have yet to find any of these guys showing actual textual evidence (as one might find in LSJ or Slater) to support their theory, and it’s this kind of actual evidence I’m looking for. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, it’s all just “theories” designed to support a premise…

It’s just looking like the “typical” protestant view is simply easier to support… Especially when one considers that the Greek ACTUALLY says “…you are Petros and upon this THE petra…”

If I was saying that line in English, and had to provide punctuation, my natural inclination would be to say “…you are Petros, and upon this - the petra - I will build my church”.

shrug

Now - remember - we’re just “conversing”, OK? These are just my “thoughts”, and are not hard-core “objections”…

But - consider this:

“Ida said to Bob - let’s start a business selling widgets, and you, Bob, will be the boss. And Bob says 'and you are Ida, and upon this - the idEa - I will build my company”…

See that nifty little “play on words”? pretty clever. But, “Ida” and “idea” are clearly two different things…

OK, OK - if this example doesn’t help you understand my Big Question, then please ignore it. If it helps, then as always, your comments and thoughts are welcomed…

aussie

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Hey, Cruz Sacra -

As far as “names” go, I’d say your “petra/petros” thoughts might be correct, except that both words are used as nouns in the scripture (although, clearly, Petros is also used as a name).

And, they are seperate words, with seperate definitions. (I’ve posted the definitions from Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek/English Lexicon a few times before - I don’t want to be redundant again).

So, what I’m saying is that - although both words eventually were used as names, and although both share the petr root - they don’t mean the same thing at all.

(incidentally, from my readings, it appears that Petra wasn’t used as a womans name until sometime in the 1800’s or so - but, not sure that that really matters)

So, petros was indeed used as the name for Simon, and according to LSJ, it seems to signify “smallish” rocks. Petra is always used as a noun in scripture, and according to LSJ, aways refers to “a rock mass”.

If the word were like the Greek word for “dog” - which has a masculine and femine version, for male and female dog - then “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…” would clearly be using a masculine and feminine version of the same, single word, that had only one definition. But, they’re not like “dog-a” and “dog-os” (so to speak). “dog” is the same animal, just male and female. But there are no male and female rocks. And, as I’ve mentioned, Greek dictionaries show them as two seperate words, with two seperate meanings…

I guess - just to sort of sum up - I kinda don’t think the explanation you offered really works. And besides, even IF Petros and Petra HAD both been used back in “biblical times” as names, it would make no sense for Jesus to refer to Simon by both a male and female name… So, I’m just not sure if that explanation works for me…

I may be missing something in what you said, and I’m really open to other ideas, and I thank you for taking the time to offer your (name removed by moderator)ut on my question…

aussie

Hi Aussie,
The root “petr-” appears in Scripture with many different endings. That fact does not change the meaning of the word. When we read the word with the ending “-os” in Matthew, it still means rock, it’s just a proper name now, and the ending “-os” was chosen because Peter is a man. Jesus using the word “petra” immediately after in reference to Peter is not calling him by a second, feminine name, I was just making a point about the endings attached to root words and how the ending can be changed. Most of the time, a “masculine” or “feminine” ending has nothing to do with sex. As you said, a rock is not male or female. I was just trying to explain how they could still mean the same thing. I think I clouded the issue. The rule I presented is just a general rule. The line is not always that clear. You’re probably right about what time period Petra came to be used as a name, but I was just making a point.

The truth is that Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, called the man we know as Peter by the name Kephas, which is Aramaic for “rock,” and we know this because St. John tells us (and he was there) and St. Paul who knew him refers to Peter with the Aramaic name. And according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions, Kephas is a proper masculine noun. Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries compares the word Kephas to the Hebrew Keph, which means a hollow rock. (The meaning is that you would take shelter in the hollow, or in the case of Peter, you would take shelter in Peter/the Church.) The Robinson’s Morphological Analysis Code attached to it also says Kephas is masculine. But don’t get hung up on masculine/feminine.

Let me try to explain the Matthew passage this way: Let’s say Jesus had called Peter another name altogether, this time in English. Peter declares that Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus says, “And I tell you, that you are Brilliant, and on this brilliance I will build my Church.” It is quite obvious to us that Jesus will build the Church on whoever he has just named Brilliant, despite the fact that the two words have different endings. They would appear as two separate words in dictionaries (much like Petros appears apart from petra and is defined as Peter’s name specifically). This is not an exact parallel between English usage and Greek usage, but focus on the broader sense of meaning you get from the passage from Matthew instead of particulars of word endings.

When it comes to identifying things as small or large rocks, there are much more dramatic ways to do it in Greek. According to Strong’s, a “petros” would be larger than a “lithos,” and “petra” and “petros” are not contrasted by size but rather by the ending (masculine/feminine). This is the reason we say that the small/large rock thing is silly; because if the Greek were going to differentiate between Peter as Petros and another size rock, the difference would be obvious just from the word chosen.

The bottom line is this: the Church has maintained since the year AD 33 that she is founded on the rock of St. Peter; and ever since the Gospel of Matthew was written she has pointed to chapter 16, verse 18 to support her claim with the words of Christ himself. Those who claim otherwise want to still be called Christian but not Catholic and want to be part of some loosely-knit invisible Church without a central authority while ignoring the fact that there is a very visible Church which Christ founded with its visible central authority.

I hope I have helped you a little, even if what I have written clouded things initially.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hey aussie,

I understand you are just trying to sort this out and are not trying to be argumentative. I am just objecting to your objections.

Regarding the names, I believe it is imperative to settle the question of whether or not it was acceptable to call a male Petra in the Hellenic World of the 1st century A.D. Later usage is of no significance as it is my understanding that in the 1st century, Greek speakers would not refer to a male as Petra.

You said:

“The biggest problem with this theory? How would a natural Greek reader ever KNOW that ‘petros’ (as used for a name) was MEANT to be ‘petra’, but that the writer had decided to use ‘petros’ instead?”

I think they would for 2 reasons:

a) in this view (which I believe to be the correct one) the Greek readers already know that they are more or less interchangeable

especially in the context of…

b) in this view (which I believe to be the correct one) it would not be appropriate to name a male Petra.

also, in my view which I believe to be in line with Catholic teaching, the readers would be aided by Apostolic Tradition. I think you are assuming the just have the Bible and that’s it; they are left to sort it out by themselves. I don’t agree with this. I think that the Scriptures were more or less confined to the particular churches.

You said: "AND - more to the point: NONE of the scholars mentioned provide actual, textual evidence (as one might find in LSJ, Slater, or Autenreith) demonstrating that the words were “more or less synonymous”. They all SAY that, but I’m looking for the REASON they say that. Anybody can make “assertions”.

First, the source I cited was citing them, I suppose we’d have to look at the individual works themselves. Second, I have shown where I believe the source you are using (the LSJ Lexicon) supports their view.

You said: What I keep on seeing is “theories” and “assertions” about how it MIGHT have worked, but so far, all these theories just look like the scholars are just STRAINING to figure out a way to make “petros = petra”, as if they’re desperate to do so.

I think the strength in bringing up those Protestant scholars (and I believe there are more) is to show that they (and non-Catholic scholars altogether) would be the least likely to to any “straining” or be “desperate” to interpret the text that way. (Not that I’m saying that I agree that Catholic scholars or any others who agree with them are straining or are desperate in regards to the Text in question.)

You said:

“Or they have to say ‘well, petros and petra were synononymous’, but then you’ll see other guys, who SUPPORT the Catholic position, saying ‘they were’t exact synonyms’.”

I think this is perhaps almost a distinction without a difference (perhaps not quite.) I mean, the point is that both who say this would I think agree that the two terms could be used interchangeably. (note: this would even more so be the case considering point b) above: “in this view (which I believe to be the correct one) it would not be appropriate to name a male Petra.”)

Like I said, even your own source (the LSJ Lexicon), I think if you look at it carefully, would tend to point towards the 2 words in question not being completely distinct. I have bolded the parts that make me believe this in my previous post.

But in the end I think that it is a question of the correct exegesis of Scripture (not just merely a linguistic analysis.) And this exegesis of Scripture the Catholic Church does within the grid of Apostolic Tradition.

Also, I will point out that I believe (if I’m not mistaken) that the Catholic Church does interpret the text in question as referring to Peter’s faith (as many Fathers do to I believe.)

This was brought up in another thread, and user Marco Polo cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church to this effect. Here is his post:

Yes, it is possible to understand the “rock” in multiple ways. The Catechism has both Peter and his confession as the “rock.” And other magisterial docs repeat Scripture’s wording that Christ is the rock.
#424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

#552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

#881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
And Pope Paul VI, quoting the Church Father Pope Leo I, writes:
Saint Peter does not cease to preside over his See, and preserves an endless sharing with the Sovereign Priest. The firmness that he received from the Rock which is Christ, he himself, having become the Rock, transmits it equally to his successors too. (Paul VI, Gaudete in Domino, 1975)

But this in no way denies the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that the primary meaning of the text (which I believe to be the true primary meaning) is that St. Peter is the Rock and that this text proves the Papacy.

Again, how can you separate St. Peter from his profession of faith?

Peace–

Nick

 

[aussie_stockman]

Hi Aussie,
The root “petr-” appears in Scripture with many different endings. That fact does not change the meaning of the word. When we read the word with the ending “-os” in Matthew, it still means rock, it’s just a proper name now, and the ending “-os” was chosen because Peter is a man. Jesus using the word “petra” immediately after in reference to Peter is not calling him by a second, feminine name, I was just making a point about the endings attached to root words and how the ending can be changed. Most of the time, a “masculine” or “feminine” ending has nothing to do with sex. As you said, a rock is not male or female. I was just trying to explain how they could still mean the same thing. I think I clouded the issue. The rule I presented is just a general rule. The line is not always that clear. You’re probably right about what time period Petra came to be used as a name, but I was just making a point.

Actually, the endings DO change the meaning of the word. I’ve shown the actual “dictionary definitions” of petros and petra several times - they are different words with different meanings. They don’t both just mean “rock”. There is a significant difference between the two words.

The truth is that Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, called the man we know as Peter by the name Kephas, which is Aramaic for “rock,” and we know this because St. John tells us (and he was there) and St. Paul who knew him refers to Peter with the Aramaic name. And according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions, Kephas is a proper masculine noun.

As you point out, “Kephas” is indeed a PROPER masculine noun. However, Kephas is the “Greek-ized” version (transliteration) of “kepha”, which is an Aramaic feminine noun.

When TRANSLITERATING names from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek, it was common practice to add the “-as”, “-os”, or simply “-s” endings: Yeshua becomes Yeshuos in Greek. Kaiapha becomes Caiaphas in Greek. Bar Abba becomes Barabbas in Greek.
Kepha becomes Kephas in Greek. What JESUS called Simon was “Kepha” - in Aramaic - and it is a feminine Aramaic noun.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek dictionaries compares the word Kephas to the Hebrew Keph, which means a hollow rock. (The meaning is that you would take shelter in the hollow, or in the case of Peter, you would take shelter in Peter/the Church.) The Robinson’s Morphological Analysis Code attached to it also says Kephas is masculine. But don’t get hung up on masculine/feminine.
[/OUOTE]

Regarding the word “keph”: Strongs concordance is entirely incorrect on this one. The word “keph” is NOT used in the bible (at least, not in the sense of “a hollow in a rock”). The Hebrew word “kephim”, though, is used twice: Jeremiah 4:29 and Job 30:6

(Jer 4:29 - At the sound of the horseman and bowman every city flees; They go into the thickets and climb among the rocks (kephim); Every city is forsaken, And no man dwells in them)

(Job 30:6 - So that they dwell in dreadful valleys, In holes of the earth and of the rocks (kephim).)

Now - some “rabbinical analysis” of the word “kephim”, used in the above scriptures:

"…for rocks and mountains are called kefim, as in, ‘They clamber up the rocks
(u-va-kefim alu)’.
Parashat Re’eh - commentary on the Torah; The Dukhifat or Hoopoe; by Yaron Seri,
faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel ]

…and they ascended among the boulders: Hebrew. ובכפים. סלע" (note: כפים = kephim)
[Rashi commentary on Jer 4:29; Chabad.org; The Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi
Commentary; http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16001/showrashi/true]

“Kephim is a rare Hebrew word that is always and only used in the plural, and refers to
mountains or large rocks”.

It is true that there is a Hebrew word “keph” (actually pronounce “kaf”) - and it is a DUAL feminine noun. Dual nouns ALWAYS refer to a “pair” of things, and are commonly used for body parts, such as two hands, two eyes, two feet.

The plural ending for dual nouns IS indeed “-im”… SO - if one were saying “he clapped his hands”, he would say (essentially) “he clapped his ‘kephim’”.

BUT - this usage is VERY specific, and again, it means TWO hands, specifically. That is how dual nouns work in Hebrew.

If one is using the word “keph” to refer to “hollows” (or spoons, which is the modern usage), one uses the word “kephot”. ("-ot" is the common feminine plural ending).

The word “kephim” used in Job and Jeremiah - IF it were being used in the sense of “hollows” - would be kephot, not kephim.

“kephim” CAN indeed refer to TWO “palms of hands” (as a DUAL noun in Hebrew), but if used as “hollows” or “spoons”, it is kephot.

However - in Job and Jeremiah - the word “kephim” is that very unique Hebrew word that is ALWAYS used in the plural, and refers to large rocks or mountains. There is no “singular” version of this word in Hebrew that means “a single rock”.

Please don’t take my word for this… Use virtually any Hebrew dictionary, and you will see what I’m talking about…

The bottom line is this: the Church has maintained since the year AD 33 that she is founded on the rock of St. Peter; and ever since the Gospel of Matthew was written she has pointed to chapter 16, verse 18 to support her claim with the words of Christ himself. Those who claim otherwise want to still be called Christian but not Catholic and want to be part of some loosely-knit invisible Church without a central authority while ignoring the fact that there is a very visible Church which Christ founded with its visible central authority.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Hey, Nick -

I’m not going to “quote” you here, because you’ve made some good points in your previous post…

But, here’s what I’m seeing: What we’re hitting on here is the very same thing that has been debated for centuries.

As you know, the Orthodox churches trace their beginnings right back to the same point in history - and, even the peshitta (Syriac translation of the Eastern Orthodox, I believe) uses the words “kipha… kipha…” in Matt 16:18 - yet they don’t believe in the Papacy.

And, as you point out, there are Protestant scholars who will argue (and dang, it’s a whole lot of arguing going on about all this, for a long time) that Simon Peter was “this rock” that Jesus talked about - but they don’t believe in the idea of the Papacy either.

It’s beginning to look like this to me: Catholics have their beliefs, and have their support for their beliefs. But so do Orthodox and Protestants.

Catholics have “traditions” that support their beliefs, but even there, some of the Church Fathers seemed to have been sort of “back and forth” on whether or not Peter or Peters Confession was “this rock”… (you probably know, Augustine seemed to express both beliefs at different times).

And, there are guys that date back as far as other Church Fathers that are no longer considered as “Catholic Church” Fathers, but are considered as Orthodox Church Fathers - and the distinction was that these were guys that - very early on - did not go along with the idea of the Papacy… (and, this debate went on for centuries, until the Great Schism)

So, the truth is, I’m just not sure which one to believe.

I can see where either side might have it right, OR, might have it wrong.

Here’s the part where I get most concerned: What if I’m no smarter than all those Orthodox and (more typical) Protestant scholars from over the centuries? What happens to ME if I get this answer wrong? What if I put my very best efforts forth to dig into this question (as I have been doing) and finally decide “nope, the Catholics are a really sweet bunch of people, and I admire them, but I think Jesus never meant for there to be another “head of the church” besides Himself, personally?” Or, what if I was like those guys I told you about up there in the Andes, and never even HEARD of the Pope, or the Catholic church? Am I doomed to perdition for all eternity?

I’m kinda thinking this is all coming down to almost a “coin toss” for me… I mean, I KNOW that I can believe in JESUS. HE was resurrected. He is who He said He is - the Christ, Messiah, Emmanuel, my Saviour. I’m certain I can trust and believe in that.

I’m just not so certain I can trust in “Peter” (or subsequent Popes). I don’t say that to impune ANY of those Servants of Christ in any fashion. It’s just that I see that the arguments made by, say, the Orthodox are just as good (or bad) as those made by the Catholics…

OK - I’m really “rambling” here… I don’t at all mean to press YOU, personally, to provide an answer for me…

BUT - I really have enjoyed our good conversation, and I am not at all through with this process… hehehhe… But - really, I don’t want to “tie you up forever” in this, either…

BTW - you seem like a pretty good guy to me…

I think I may just need to back up and get down to some serous prayer on this matter…

aussie

 

[LionHeart777]

Aussie,

I would say that in looking at the evidence for the Papacy, you should broaden your vision a bit and take a look at all of the Scriptural evidence (which no doubt Mt 16:18-19 is a huge part of to say the least) as well as the Patristic evidence, especially how the Roman See was regarded from the earliest of times (starting with Pope St. Clement’s “Letter to the Corinthians” ca. A.D. 80, written while St. John was still alive and living at Ephesus to my understanding.)

Also, for the record, “The Peshitta is the standard Syriac Bible, used by the Maronite Church, amongst others.” (source: stmaronjax.com/maronites.html) Maronites are Catholics; they are one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, and the Maronite Church is culturally Lebanese to my understanding. They are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI.

You said:

And, there are guys that date back as far as other Church Fathers that are no longer considered as “Catholic Church” Fathers, but are considered as Orthodox Church Fathers - and the distinction was that these were guys that - very early on - did not go along with the idea of the Papacy… (and, this debate went on for centuries, until the Great Schism)

I don’t think this accurate aussie. Here is where you would need to cite your sources for the claims being made here. I think you should reinvestigate this.

On the rest, I don’t think I am qualified to give you pastoral advice, but I would just continue to encourage you to pray about it as you said. Read the very best of what Catholics have written on this matter and read their refutations of the Orthodox and Protestant objections.

You don’t seem like a bad guy yourself

I will keep you in my prayers and hope you end up where God would have you to be (which I believe is in full communion with the Catholic Church )

I’ll see you around I hope, don’t hesitate if I can be of any help.

–Peace

–Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

Oh, P.S.

I said:

I would say that in looking at the evidence for the Papacy, you should broaden your vision a bit and take a look at all of the Scriptural evidence (which no doubt Mt 16:18-19 is a huge part of to say the least) as well as the Patristic evidence, especially how the Roman See was regarded from the earliest of times (starting with Pope St. Clement’s “Letter to the Corinthians” ca. A.D. 80, written while St. John was still alive and living at Ephesus to my understanding.)

Also, look at how the the Popes themselves, even as early as Pope St. Clement whom I just mentioned, are aware of their unique authority. Then there was Pope St. Victor in the Quartodeciman controversy around the mid 100’s (actually ca. A.D. 190 according to the “Catholic Encyclopdia”.) Then there is Pope St. Stephen. We know that he sees his succession from St. Peter as authoritative from an extant letter of Firmilian, a Bishop in Asia Minor, who is writing to St. Cyprian of Carthage, in the context of the Rebaptism controversy ca. 250 A.D. Firmilian writes:

1. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm

Notice that Pope St. Stephen “boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter”, indicating that he is aware that there is something unique about his episcopate.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Aussie,

I would say that in looking at the evidence for the Papacy, you should broaden your vision a bit and take a look at all of the Scriptural evidence (which no doubt Mt 16:18-19 is a huge part of to say the least) as well as the Patristic evidence, especially how the Roman See was regarded from the earliest of times (starting with Pope St. Clement’s “Letter to the Corinthians” ca. A.D. 80, written while St. John was still alive and living at Ephesus to my understanding.)

I’m reading Letter to the Corinthians at this very moment…

Also, for the record, “The Peshitta is the standard Syriac Bible, used by the Maronite Church, amongst others.” (source: stmaronjax.com/maronites.html) Maronites are Catholics; they are one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, and the Maronite Church is culturally Lebanese to my understanding. They are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI.

Yeh, thats probably right… but, it’s also used by the Syriac Orthodox church…

You said:

And, there are guys that date back as far as other Church Fathers that are no longer considered as “Catholic Church” Fathers, but are considered as Orthodox Church Fathers - and the distinction was that these were guys that - very early on - did not go along with the idea of the Papacy… (and, this debate went on for centuries, until the Great Schism)

I don’t think this accurate aussie. Here is where you would need to cite your sources for the claims being made here. I think you should reinvestigate this.

Hmmmm… I said “And, there are guys that date back as far as other Church Fathers that are no longer considered as “Catholic Church” Fathers, but are considered as Orthodox Church Fathers”… and yeh, I can see your objection to this…

This looks like I meant to say there were guys that were, at one time, considered “Catholic Church Fathers”, but they lost that “title” when they stayed with the Orthodox church… (or, something like that)…

Well - what I meant to be getting at is this: One must consider that for the Catholic church, the “age of the fathers” ended in about the 8th century (if I’m not mistaken), but the Orthodox church does not consider it to have ended at all… The Great Schism was in 1054 (again, if I’m not mistaken), which gives about 200 years in which the Orthodox churches still had “church fathers”, while the Catholic church did not recognize them…

Nonetheless, rest assurred: I’m in the “big middle” of looking up stuff, like the letters of Clement, (etc), and finding some absolutely fascinating material…

I do have to wonder something - and you might know the answer to this: Some of these very early writings, like by Clement and Polycarp - Why weren’t any of these things included in the canon? The writings of Luke (gospel, Acts) were included, but Luke makes it very clear that he himself was NOT an “eyewitness” to the events in the gospels (although, apparantly, he was present for some of the things recorded in Acts). The canon did not come about till quite a bit later… So, do you know why some writings were canonized, and others - like Clements letters - were not?

 

[ahs]

…Well - what I meant to be getting at is this: One must consider that for the Catholic church, the “age of the fathers” ended in about the 8th century (if I’m not mistaken), but the Orthodox church does not consider it to have ended at all…

I don’t know if this is correct or not, but a way I heard it explained was that the “Fathers” were those closest to the times of the Apostles…most of whome died for the Faith. They paved the road, so to speak, for the future leaders of the Church. Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeas…those who either had first hand relationship with the Apostles or were taught by those who did…or maybe one generation further. After that were the Doctors of the Church…those who also contributed to the growth of theological understanding, but had teh road already paved for them by predecessors. These would be such as Thomas Aquinas and Gregory I, etc… **Again, I’m not sure if that is the correct explanation or not. **

I do have to wonder something - and you might know the answer to this: Some of these very early writings, like by Clement and Polycarp - Why weren’t any of these things included in the canon? The writings of Luke (gospel, Acts) were included, but Luke makes it very clear that he himself was NOT an “eyewitness” to the events in the gospels (although, apparantly, he was present for some of the things recorded in Acts). The canon did not come about till quite a bit later… So, do you know why some writings were canonized, and others - like Clements letters - were not?

Because the Holy Spirit said so. Seriously (and seriously that is the answer) I don’t think anyone knows except those who decided what was Canonical or not…through the Holy Spirit’s guidance. That’s one of the points that gets made when discussing sola scriptura. If the Bible were the final rule…then how do we know what books belong to it since the Scriptures never claimed to be canonical nor gave a list of the books that were to be considered so.

 

[aussie_stockman]

I don’t know if this is correct or not, but a way I heard it explained was that the “Fathers” were those closest to the times of the Apostles…most of whome died for the Faith. They paved the road, so to speak, for the future leaders of the Church. Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeas…those who either had first hand relationship with the Apostles or were taught by those who did…or maybe one generation further. After that were the Doctors of the Church…those who also contributed to the growth of theological understanding, but had teh road already paved for them by predecessors. These would be such as Thomas Aquinas and Gregory I, etc… **Again, I’m not sure if that is the correct explanation or not. **

Thats OK if it’s not correct… We’re just talking… This ain’t a "legal case…

According to some Catholic Encyclopedia: “St. John of Damascus (c. 750) closes the patristic period with his polemics against heresies, his exegetical and ascetical writings, his beautiful hymns, and above all his “Fountain of Wisdom”…”

(see newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm)

hehehehe… yeh, I’m doing my homework…

Because the Holy Spirit said so. Seriously (and seriously that is the answer) I don’t think anyone knows except those who decided what was Canonical or not…through the Holy Spirit’s guidance. That’s one of the points that gets made when discussing sola scriptura. If the Bible were the final rule…then how do we know what books belong to it since the Scriptures never claimed to be canonical nor gave a list of the books that were to be considered so.

actually, not a bad answer at all…

 

[LionHeart777]

I’m reading Letter to the Corinthians at this very moment…

Yeh, thats probably right… but, it’s also used by the Syriac Orthodox church…

Hmmmm… I said “And, there are guys that date back as far as other Church Fathers that are no longer considered as “Catholic Church” Fathers, but are considered as Orthodox Church Fathers”… and yeh, I can see your objection to this…

This looks like I meant to say there were guys that were, at one time, considered “Catholic Church Fathers”, but they lost that “title” when they stayed with the Orthodox church… (or, something like that)…

Well - what I meant to be getting at is this: One must consider that for the Catholic church, the “age of the fathers” ended in about the 8th century (if I’m not mistaken), but the Orthodox church does not consider it to have ended at all… The Great Schism was in 1054 (again, if I’m not mistaken), which gives about 200 years in which the Orthodox churches still had “church fathers”, while the Catholic church did not recognize them…

Nonetheless, rest assurred: I’m in the “big middle” of looking up stuff, like the letters of Clement, (etc), and finding some absolutely fascinating material…

I do have to wonder something - and you might know the answer to this: Some of these very early writings, like by Clement and Polycarp - Why weren’t any of these things included in the canon? The writings of Luke (gospel, Acts) were included, but Luke makes it very clear that he himself was NOT an “eyewitness” to the events in the gospels (although, apparantly, he was present for some of the things recorded in Acts). The canon did not come about till quite a bit later… So, do you know why some writings were canonized, and others - like Clements letters - were not?

hey aussie,

I didn’t know that Eastern Orthodox Christians extend the ECF’s past the 8th century. As you pointed out, Catholics don’t extend the period as far. I believe the writers after the cut-off you mentioned are referred to as the Medieval writers or Scholastics (not 100% what the period after the Fathers is referred to.)

As to what Books made the Canon I would agree that the Holy Spirit guided the Church and the Church determined and/or recognized what was and what was not part of the Canon. Clement’s letter (the second is mistakenly attributed to him as I understand it) was well esteemed though as we see it was included in the contents of the Codex Sinaiticus, which according to Wikipedia
“…is one of the four great uncial codices, an ancient, handwritten copy of the Greek Bible… written in the 4th century…”

Also, here is a quote from Dionysius of Corinth in his “Letter to Pope Soter” ca. A.D. 170:

‘Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement’ …

(Source: catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i) (emphasis mine)

As you can see, here Pope St. Clement’s letter was still being read by the Corinthians almost a century after he had wrote to that church.

 

[aussie_stockman]

To all my “discussion friends” —

OK, now guys, this is gonna be way WAY “off thread”, but, here’s what I’ve sort of gathered so far… And, as always, anything and everything I’m going to say is in a spirit of discussion, not debate…

I see that “tradition” (ie, long-held, “traditional” beliefs, as opposed to “only scripture”) is a very important thing in the CC.

As we all have seen, from earlier discussions, the understanding of the “petros/petra” thing has more to do with “tradition” (and, I don’t mean to downplay the use of that word at all) than it has to do with “pure linguistic analysis” (or whatever we might call it).

That is, it seems to work something like this:

In Matt 16:18 - “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…” - Petros and petra MUST mean the “same thing” (Simon bar Jona) - even if the “linguistics” are not readily apparant - BECAUSE “Church Tradition” has always held that Peter is indeed “this rock” (upon which the Church would be built). In other words, “Petros = petra” was indeed the way the Church Fathers understood it, way back when, so there you have it.

In other words, we have the record of the Church Fathers, who understood (from way early on) that Jesus was indeed saying He would build His church on Simon Peter.

SO - One might say that Matt 16:18 (in particular, the Greek) MUST be understood in the light of what was believed from way early on, by the Church Fathers. Their understanding (again, from way back) was that Simon Peter was “this rock”, so therefore, the understanding of the “linguistics” of Matt 16:18 (ie, “…petros… petra…”) must be based on, or be “guided by” that early “tradition”… In short - the tradition says Simon Peter is “this rock”, therefore, that MUST be what Matt 16:18 says, even if the language appears (at least, to some) to say differently.

I hope I’ve expressed that in very FAIR terms… Because, here’s where I’m really going with all this:

I’ve been reading on the “perptual virginity of Mary”. Now, I’m sure you guys all know that scripture talks about Jesus having brothers and sisters. BUT - Church Tradition says that Mary was “ever a virgin” (before and after the birth of Christ) - so therefore, when the scripture talks about Jesus having brothers and sisters, it must mean that He had step-brothers and step-sisters… perhaps, Josephs children from a previous marriage, or something like that.

HERES the Big Problem I’m having - and it’s NOT with either the “petros/petra” thing nor with the “perpetual virginity of Mary” thing (in and of themselves)…

My problem is this: The “church traditions” are - by definition - a set of traditions that were all held by guys of a “similar mindset” (so to speak). That is, I’m 100% positive that somewhere in the world at that time - maybe in some little congregation of Christians that still lived in Israel, and were still “Jews” (ie, Messianic Jews) - there were people that would have said “perpetual virginity of Mary? Thats NUTS! Procreation (in Jewish Law) is the FIRST MITZVAH of the Law. “be fruitful and multiply”. This was the FIRST COMMANDMENT of Yahweh. OF COURSE Joseph and Mary had other children. It was “Mitzvah” for Joseph to have as many children as he could, and it was “mitzvah” for Mary to partner with him in fulfilling that Law”.

The reason I say that with 100% certainty is that there are plenty of people who would say the same thing these days (and I’m sure this topic is nothing new). Frankly, it’s virtually impossible to believe that every single believer back in the 1st Century all somehow “knew” that Mary was a virgin all her life. Remember those Indian guys in the Andes I told you about? Those guys - reading just the bible - had no reason at all to believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin. They read that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that was that.

So, exactly WHOS “tradition” was it?

The thing I notice is that the vast majority of Church Fathers (once you get past the Apostles themselves) are Gentiles, not Jews. Most of them are from some kind of “Greco/Roman” background.

My point? Well, I was disturbed a bit in reading 1 Clement, how Clement talks about the “phoenix” as if it were FACT. I mean, he’s taking some kind of myth and using it to prove a point: "Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His promise?"

My point: There is NO SUCH THING as a “phoenix”. It was a MYTHOLOGICAL bird. Yet Clement is referring to this myth as if it were reality, saying that God “showeth to us even by a bird the magnificance of His promise”. But God DIDN’T do that. God DIDN’T use the phoenix to that purpose - because there IS NO PHOENIX.

So when it comes down to “the perpetual virginity of Mary”, how do we know this isn’t some other “Greek mythology” working its way into the tradition?

I mean, there’s certainly nothing in scripture that attests to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Sure - one could argue “well, there’s nothing that says she WASN’T, either”, and then go on and say “besides, we have this tradition…”

But - WHO has that tradition? Guys from a GENTILE culture. And, what if some other tradition was held by other people, say, back in Israel? or in Babylon? Well, it was simply discarded by those in Rome. Those Indian guys up in the Andes hold to the “tradition” that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin (because they’ve simply read that Jesus had brothers and sisters), but their particular tradition is discarded by the Catholic Church.

I guess what I’m saying, in short, is that I’m thinking that the conspicuous absense of “Jewish Church Fathers”, plus the overwhelming majority of “Greco/Roman” (early) Church Fathers makes me very suspicious of which “traditions” were being kept, and which ones were being disregarded. And, it seems that the group of guys known as “Catholic Church Fathers” were DEFINED by being “in line” with with what was being said by a particular group. I mean, if one held to the belief that Simon bar Jona was NOT “this rock”, but rather, that Christ Himself was “this rock”, then he was certainly excluded from that group. You couldn’t BE a Church Father unless you went along with the belief that Simon Peter was “this rock”. Yet, the fact remains: The scripture (Matt 16:18) is indeed ambiguous, at it’s best (and that’s why it’s debated so much). And, there are NO other writings of the apostles that state clearly that Simon Peter was “this rock” in that particular incident. So, the Catholics say “well, the Catholic Church Fathers considered Simon Peter as ‘this rock’”, but way off in the Andes is a bunch of Indians who never heard of the Catholic Church or the Blessed Pope, and say that Jesus MUST be “this rock” because Paul clearly says that “Jesus was that petra”.

To further clarify my point on “traditions”: - Easter was originally celebrated at the time of the Passover, but the Roman church changed that. They did away with something that was really more than a mere “tradition”, but that was, in fact, both historically and scripturally supportable, and exchanged it for some other day… So, “church tradition” holds that Easter should be celebrated on such-and-such a day, but Orthodox tradition says “nope, Easter is celebrated after the Passover, when it really occurred”.

Therefore, I’m thinking: I’m not too sure about the validity of the “church tradition” argument… It’s good for those who already believe it, but for those “outside” of that group, it is (in some cases) a bit hard to swallow… Why should I believe Catholic Church tradition over, say, Orthodox tradition? Or, why shouldn’t I just approach the whle thing like those amazing “Lovers of Jesus” that I met in that Indian village in the Andes, and just go by what seems to be most obvious in scripture?

(BTW - this is not meant either as an argumentative question, nor rhetorical in any sense… It’s an honest question, and my ears are open)

OK - As always, I’m asking for your thoughts, (name removed by moderator)ut, etc. As always, do NOT expect me to “debate” anything here. I’m NOT “defending” anybodys viewpoint. It’s just that I’m a reasonably educated guy, and I do read quite well, and what I’ve posted above is not necessarly representative of MY personal viewpoint, but rather, is just an expression of a viewpoint to which many hold. (hehehehe… thats my “disclaimer”)

 

[LionHeart777]

aussie,

it’s late here so I’ll just touch on one thing and hopefully get to some other points as time permits.

First I think it might be helpful to define terms. What do Catholics mean when they speak of Sacred Tradition (big “T”) as opposed to traditions (small “t”)?

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).

source: catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

The word “tradition” actually means handing down something to another person.

Scripture testifies to this meaning of Catholic Tradition as the normal mode of transmitting the Faith:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)
“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you…” (1 Cor 11:23)

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received…” (1 Cor 15:3)

“…I know whom I have believed *, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:11-14)

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:1-2)

“…I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)

We often write Tradition, with a capital ‘T’, to mean Sacred Tradition. This Catholic Tradition is different from those traditions (small ‘t’) that are merely customs, and which are not part of Divine Revelation.*

source: beginningcatholic.com/catholic-tradition.html

 

[aussie_stockman]

Hey, Nick –

VERY informative response… The info you posted was a very clear description of what is actually meant by “Tradition” - ie, handing down what you have learned…

*]This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully transmitted to each new generation. *

I acknowledge that what you’ve shown me is what is meant by Tradition, but now, on to the bigger question: Are things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary TRULY “teachings of the Apostles”?

I haven’t found much at all to support the “perpetual virginity” except in writings that are a couple hundred years after the crucifixion.

From stuff I’ve found, it appears that guys like Hegesippus and Tertullian did not at all subscribe to the “perpetual virginity” idea… From what I’ve read, Tertullian flat out rejects the idea.

So, without getting specifically into the doctrine of “perpetual virginity” - my question remains: Whos tradition was this? If it were truly “handed down” from the Apostles, then why do early Church Fathers even DISCUSS the matter? Especially, why would they even DEBATE it?

I mean, if Peter (and, presumably Paul) - the Apostles Themselves - spent YEARS teaching in Rome, and were “handing down” the doctrine of “perpetual virginity”, then there should have been PLENTY of people who knew about it. Especially their “understudies” (for lack of a better word).

Same thing with the “petros/petra” understanding: This should have been made as clear as glass, if those two great Apostles were presiding in, and teaching in Rome. Especially if Peter was in Rome for some 20+ years (as I’ve read in a couple of sources). So, if the “petros/petra” understanding was indeed “handed down” from (no less than) Peter himself, then I’m not exactly understanding why on earth there were “discussions” or “debates” about it. I mean, I’m not sure (for example) that Augustine ever really got himself settled on the matter. He seems to swing both ways at times… Sometimes, Peter is the rock, sometimes, Jesus is…

So, I guess I’m just myself not quite comfortable with exactly who’s traditions are being “handed down”.

And, when I read Clement, writing an absolutely MARVELOUS letter to Corinth, clearly knowledgable of O.T. scripture, and then throwing in some blurb about the phoenix as something of an assurance of our own resurrection, it gets me kinda worried… Certainly THAT wasn’t handed down by Peter and Paul…

OK…

Your turn…

 

[ahs]

**
I acknowledge that what you’ve shown me is what is meant** by Tradition, but now, on to the bigger question: Are things such as the perpetual virginity of Mary TRULY “teachings of the Apostles”?

I haven’t found much at all to support the “perpetual virginity” except in writings that are a couple hundred years after the crucifixion…

…So, without getting specifically into the doctrine of “perpetual virginity” - my question remains: Whos tradition was this? If it were truly “handed down” from the Apostles, then why do early Church Fathers even DISCUSS the matter? Especially, why would they even DEBATE it?

Whose, other than the Apostles, would those teachings be? A couple hundred years after the Crucifixtion, what groups do we see? There are Christians, Gnostics (not sure on the timing there), Pagans, etc… What do the Christians teach in that time, and before? Who still teaches those same things?

Must a teaching have been seen in writing for it to have been a Tradition passed down? We already know from Scripture that not everything is written down. Would there have been a reason to write down something that was already common knowledge? Is it not reasonable to assume that most Christians in the first couple centuries were quite familiar with Mary and her virginity? But yes, at some point we see it coming up for discussion. Why do we see ANY teachings pop up for discussion? Is it not the result of some debate on the matter, where clarification is warranted?