A
- Status
A
anthony022071
Guest
[Ignatios]
catholic-legate.com/dialogues/keys.html
< The problem in Greek, as it is in other languages, is that one cannot conjugate a linguistically feminine name ‘rock’, into a personal male name for rock. [In Aramaic, there is no need to do this, and Aramaic was the original language of the Gospel.]
Conjugation required: Greek: “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” Spanish: “You are Pedro, and upon this piedra I will build my church.” Italian: “You are Pietro, and upon this pietra I will build my church.”
No conjugation required: Aramaic: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church.” French: “You are Pierre, and upon this pierre I will build my church." English: “You are Rock (Peter which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church." >
From this article:
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Webster05Chrysostom.pdf
< …for as Mark Bonocore points out, there are some interesting
points germane to our discussion.
In Galatians 2, Paul is not only calling Peter “Kephas” in order to illustrate
his office as “the Rock.” Rather, Paul is actually employing a pun in Greek.
Notice, for example, how Paul switches between the name “Peter” (Gal 2:7-8) and
the name “Kephas” (Gal 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, & 2:14). His is no accident. For, while
the name “Kephas” is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha” (“Rock”),
it is ALSO the Greek word for “HEAD.” Thus, in Gal 2:14, when Paul boasts how
“I said to Kephas, in front of all,” what he’s REALLY saying is that ‘I even stood
up to the Head for the sake of the Gospel.’ This play on words would not be lost
on Paul’s original, Greek-speaking audience. Indeed, there would be no way for
them to miss it! >
< Mark Bonocore said that the funny thing was that a Greek Orthodox he was
debating didn’t even know that “Kephas” was actually the Greek transliteration of
the Aramaic word ‘Kepha”! They just assumed that Paul was calling Peter “the
Head,” because that’s what it means in Greek. They had completely overlooked
John 1:42. Which, funny enough, seems to be employing the same Greek pun.
Otherwise, why give the translation?
Mark says, think about it. If Simon Bar-Jonah was called “Kephas” by the
Greeks and “Kepha” by the Aramaic-speakers, how did he end up as “Peter” in the
Gospel narratives? Why isn’t he “Kephas” throughout the Gospels? Why change it
to “Petros,” unless the Gospel writers are trying to avoid equating Simon Bar-
Jonah with the name “Head” so as to make it clear that his name is “Rock.” >
From this debate:
catholic-legate.com/dialogues/keys.html
< The problem in Greek, as it is in other languages, is that one cannot conjugate a linguistically feminine name ‘rock’, into a personal male name for rock. [In Aramaic, there is no need to do this, and Aramaic was the original language of the Gospel.]
Conjugation required: Greek: “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” Spanish: “You are Pedro, and upon this piedra I will build my church.” Italian: “You are Pietro, and upon this pietra I will build my church.”
No conjugation required: Aramaic: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church.” French: “You are Pierre, and upon this pierre I will build my church." English: “You are Rock (Peter which means rock), and upon this rock I will build my church." >
The Church Fathers never said that Kephas meant major rock or small rock. That ought to be evidence enough against that protestant argument.
“Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You shall be called ‘Cephas’ (which means Peter).” (John 1:42)
From this article:
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Webster05Chrysostom.pdf
< …for as Mark Bonocore points out, there are some interesting
points germane to our discussion.
In Galatians 2, Paul is not only calling Peter “Kephas” in order to illustrate
his office as “the Rock.” Rather, Paul is actually employing a pun in Greek.
Notice, for example, how Paul switches between the name “Peter” (Gal 2:7-8) and
the name “Kephas” (Gal 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, & 2:14). His is no accident. For, while
the name “Kephas” is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha” (“Rock”),
it is ALSO the Greek word for “HEAD.” Thus, in Gal 2:14, when Paul boasts how
“I said to Kephas, in front of all,” what he’s REALLY saying is that ‘I even stood
up to the Head for the sake of the Gospel.’ This play on words would not be lost
on Paul’s original, Greek-speaking audience. Indeed, there would be no way for
them to miss it! >
< Mark Bonocore said that the funny thing was that a Greek Orthodox he was
debating didn’t even know that “Kephas” was actually the Greek transliteration of
the Aramaic word ‘Kepha”! They just assumed that Paul was calling Peter “the
Head,” because that’s what it means in Greek. They had completely overlooked
John 1:42. Which, funny enough, seems to be employing the same Greek pun.
Otherwise, why give the translation?
Mark says, think about it. If Simon Bar-Jonah was called “Kephas” by the
Greeks and “Kepha” by the Aramaic-speakers, how did he end up as “Peter” in the
Gospel narratives? Why isn’t he “Kephas” throughout the Gospels? Why change it
to “Petros,” unless the Gospel writers are trying to avoid equating Simon Bar-
Jonah with the name “Head” so as to make it clear that his name is “Rock.” >
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church **116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
A
anthony022071
Guest
N
natsclem
Guest
To be specific, it is the Roman Catholic Church that transcends borders to evangelize faithful to the command of the Lord to preach the Good News to all creation regardless of race.
Sadly, RCC is always accused of Latinizing the East. But the accusation is now baseless since RCC allows the incarnation of the liturgies to local cultures. Local bishops have the supervising authority over local concerns.
Whether the Eastern Orthodox Church is false or not, it is not the purpose of this forum.
M
Mickey
Guest
Orthodox has always been used to define the true faith. Your silly argument about the word “Orthodox” is usually used by junior highschool apologists.
M
Mickey
Guest
Oh puulleeasee! The words were omitted in the copy that I pasted from. It was not an intentional act of conspiracy. The qoute still holds up. The man was a humble servant of God and would never have wanted titles such as “supreme pontiff”, “vicar of Christ”, or “infallibility” attributed to him. You know it–and I know it.
Which means you cannot find those writings. The most we can ascertain is that Pope Pelagius and Pope Gregory did not like the title that St John used. Hence, they would not have used such titles for themselves.
Amen brother. All bishops are successors of St Peter. He is NOT saying that the Pope of Rome is a supreme infallible pontiff.
Amen!!! St Peter was bestowed the primacy of honour–yet such lofty titles were not attributed to him.
Sheesh! What do you think we are dicussing here? Obviously it is in St Gregory’s letter–however we find nothing from Pope Pelagius. We also see that very little attention was paid to said annullments.
Well then…if that is your conclusion…then who am I to argue.
The Pope never had the “supreme” authority and infallibility that the RCC attaches to him today.
Pope Gregory is a great Orthodox saint. He affirms the authority and primacy of St Peter. He often talks about the orthodoxy and pre-eminence of the Church of Rome–the capital of Christianity. But he surely is not saying what you project him to say.
My case has already been made friend–regardless of what you say.
Again, I love St Gregory the Great. He is a saint in the Orthodox Church. Holy Orthodoxy does not rely on St Gregory to “make Her case”. She relies on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, all Church Fathers, and the Great Councils.
Amen.
M
Mickey
Guest
Titles attributed to the pope include: “Bishop of Rome”, “Successor of Peter”, and “Servant of the Servants of God”.
These are good titles. I also liked “Patriarch of the West” but Pope Benedict recently dropped this one.
Other titles include: “Vicar of Christ” and “Sovereign Pontiff of the Universal Church”. I think these titles are unfortunate and St Gregory himself would have been appalled.
Pope Innocent IV (1234-1254) added the title “Vicar of God” but it has since been discontinued.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
I know the meaning of the word, but you didn’t answer my question lol.Orthodox has always been used to define the true faith. Your silly argument about the word “Orthodox” is usually used by junior highschool apologists.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
In all honesty, I was just a curious question as to when your church identified itself in this way.Orthodox has always been used to define the true faith. Your silly argument about the word “Orthodox” is usually used by junior highschool apologists.
For example, I can rightfully call my church “Church of the East” but that is not the official recognition because the Pope gave us the name “Chaldean Catholic Church”.
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Excellent!
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
So you are just saying it abandoned the name?
Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is,* there is the Catholic Church**” (*Letter to the Smyrneans *8:2 [A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Muratorian Canon
"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
“Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).
catholic.com/library/what_catholic_means.asp*
M
Mickey
Guest
Silly wabbit! Catholic means universal! Do you think these are specific references to the Roman Catholic Church?
I am through with your elementary antics.
Good day. :tiphat:
M
Mickey
Guest
Christ is Risen!
Indeed He is Risen!
Good people. Tomorrow is the Holy Orthodox feast of the Ascension of Our Lord. Pentecost is just around the corner. It is time for me to retreat into prayer. I am posting this to all the threads on which I have been actively participating. I have enjoyed our discussions. And so I will be leaving for an indefinite period of time.
I know, I know----some of you will be extremely upset that I’m gone.
I will pray for everyone.
Peace and blessings,
Mickey
Indeed He is Risen!
Good people. Tomorrow is the Holy Orthodox feast of the Ascension of Our Lord. Pentecost is just around the corner. It is time for me to retreat into prayer. I am posting this to all the threads on which I have been actively participating. I have enjoyed our discussions. And so I will be leaving for an indefinite period of time.
I know, I know----some of you will be extremely upset that I’m gone.
I will pray for everyone.
Peace and blessings,
Mickey
L
Lady_James
Guest
Thanks for that - I am not good with acronyms, but now I can see it - silly me.
P
prodromos
Guest
N
natsclem
Guest
when was the orthodox church a catholic one? the thing is…in those writings of great eastern fathers, there were no instances that refer to the orthodox church. the basic and common characteristic of the orthodox churches is that each is essentially enshrined in its own ethnic origin. on the other hand the roman catholic church is always on the go fulfilling the command of the Lord to make disciples of all nations.Silly wabbit! Catholic means universal! Do you think these are specific references to the Roman Catholic Church?
I am through with your elementary antics.
Good day. :tiphat:
apostle Paul said of the faith of the Roman Christians–“first, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8).”
it is the faith of the Roman Christians that was spoken of throughout the whole world (thus, universal) not that of other communities. Constantinople was never heard in biblical times. if it was the faith of Constantinople that was spoken of throughout the whole world I would readily submit to it.
N
natsclem
Guest
the classic example is during the ravages of Arianism–majority of bishops were Arians (in different shades of the error). even the city of Constantinople was under Arianism but thanks to docility of Alexandria and Rome that the true faith prevailed.
the biblical truth is that not all the apostles (in assembly) were graced by God to reveal the truth of Jesus. Only through Peter that the Father revealed–“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In fact, all other apostles were silent. no one dared to say what they themselves believe about Jesus; they only shared what they heard about others’ opinion about him.
In the first council, in Jerusalem, it was peter that made the decision against circumcision which the council adopted thru James.
God endowed Peter the grace to enable him fulfill his role as universal teacher and supreme authority in the church. besides Christ himself prayed for him so that he would not fail and be able to strengthen others. the only question remains is…is that role meant to be passed on to his successors? if yes…who? Rome’s, Alexandria’s or Antioch’s? Remember, Peter was the first bishop in these patriarchates.
Humans are we are…history is the best judge–the successor of Peter as universal teacher and supreme pontiff is the Bishop of Rome. In him, Christ’s declaration was fulfilled–"Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona…You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Hell tried in many ways to destroy the Roman Catholic Church but she still stands up to this day gloriously victorious on the mountain. Why? Well, she has the powerful mediator–Christ! To believe otherwise is to fail trusting Jesus.
- Status