Pope's Authority? Is it legit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Senod2

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
122
31
32
Norway
✟746.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I was planning on converting to Catholicism. But the reason why i chose Orthodoxy instead was because i find some biblical stuff that seems to contradict the ideal of the faith. Like "God does not show favoritism" just to mention a few examples, this is written both in Paul's letters and James letters. So having a pope as a above figure seem to kinda contradict that, but its also the interpretation of the matthew 16:18, with "You are Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church". Catholics atribute that to the legitimacy of popes. But thats not how orthodox see it, basically from what i have heard it has always been interpreted as "You are a rock, and upon this large amount of rock i will build my church" because Petros means rock in Greek, which is what Peter means. And the other greek word means large amount of rocks. So this was a word game as orthodox says it means. Although they agree that Peter was given the task of opening the gates of heaven though when he was given the keys. But not with the pope stuff.

Which i find to seem sensical.

But i am just wondering what your opinions are?
 

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,021,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I was planning on converting to Catholicism. But the reason why i chose Orthodoxy instead was because i find some biblical stuff that seems to contradict the ideal of the faith. Like "God does not show favoritism" just to mention a few examples, this is written both in Paul's letters and James letters. So having a pope as a above figure seem to kinda contradict that, but its also the interpretation of the matthew 16:18, with "You are Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church". Catholics atribute that to the legitimacy of popes. But thats not how orthodox see it, basically from what i have heard it has always been interpreted as "You are a rock, and upon this large amount of rock i will build my church" because Petros means rock in Greek, which is what Peter means. And the other greek word means large amount of rocks. So this was a word game as orthodox says it means. Although they agree that Peter was given the task of opening the gates of heaven though when he was given the keys. But not with the pope stuff.

Which i find to seem sensical.

But i am just wondering what your opinions are?
Welcome to Traditional Theology! If you haven't already been there, check out The Ancient Way sometime :) It's the Orthodox sub-forum on Christian Forums.

I've always heard that Peter is the rock of faith and leader of the apostles. In fact - we sing a hymn about that every week at our parish (our Patron Saints are the Holy Apostles). That verse about 'building the church on this Rock' also refers to Peter's profession of faith, which was also professed by the other apostles (see 1 Corinthians 10:4). It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church’s unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted.

The honor of 'first of equals' did fall upon the Patriarch of Rome. However, the RC position takes the primacy of the Pope to a higher level than the Orthodox hold to be true. We do not believe that the Patriarch of Rome was infallible, and we do not believe that the verse about Peter being the rock implies Papal Infallibility. (I'm sure you already know this - but I want to clarify for other readers). After the schism, the 'first among equals' moved to Constantinople, though I believe (though I am not sure) that Rome would get that honor should the Catholic Church join the Orthodox Church. That said - the title does not imply supremacy over the other patriarchs, nor infallibility.

Have you heard this Orthodox hymn about Peter?

Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honor
The rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles,
Together with Paul and the company of the twelve,
Whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith,
Giving glory to the one who gave glory to them!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Senod2
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I think the Roman patriarch is entitled to a primacy of honour and to certain functions if he is in communion with the Orthodox, functions that presently are exercised by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople for the EO, and to a lesser and less formal degree, by the Coptic Pope for the OO (in practice, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria has a primacy of honour only, whereas the EP has some limited judicial powers, which woukd othereise be exercised by the Roman Pope were it not for the Great Schism).
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I was planning on converting to Catholicism. But the reason why i chose Orthodoxy instead was because i find some biblical stuff that seems to contradict the ideal of the faith. Like "God does not show favoritism" just to mention a few examples, this is written both in Paul's letters and James letters. So having a pope as a above figure seem to kinda contradict that, but its also the interpretation of the matthew 16:18, with "You are Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church". Catholics atribute that to the legitimacy of popes. But thats not how orthodox see it, basically from what i have heard it has always been interpreted as "You are a rock, and upon this large amount of rock i will build my church" because Petros means rock in Greek, which is what Peter means. And the other greek word means large amount of rocks. So this was a word game as orthodox says it means. Although they agree that Peter was given the task of opening the gates of heaven though when he was given the keys. But not with the pope stuff.

Which i find to seem sensical.

But i am just wondering what your opinions are?


Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

He said(translated) "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my Church."
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

He said(translated) "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my Church."

He probably addressed Pontius Pilate in Koine Greek. I would be interested in what @SteveCaruso thinks on this point. My impression is that Koine Greek would be a very useful lingua franca given that Roman authorities might not condescend to speak Aramaic.
 
Upvote 0

Senod2

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
122
31
32
Norway
✟746.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

He said(translated) "You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my Church."
I am basing what is written first, which is in the greek new testament. That's what it was originally written in, not in Aramaic. If i am wrong then people who said that Old Testament in hebrew and New Testament in Greek got it wrong?. Since it is considered to be written first in that language according to what history tells me. Whatever they spoke you cannot attribute it on conspiracy on what Aramaic words they might use, considering the language they used to write it first in, if it was written like that then it is forever in it in my opinion. Atleast from a logical point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

SteveCaruso

Translator
May 17, 2010
812
555
✟54,511.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
He probably addressed Pontius Pilate in Koine Greek. I would be interested in what @SteveCaruso thinks on this point. My impression is that Koine Greek would be a very useful lingua franca given that Roman authorities might not condescend to speak Aramaic.

The Cephas connection is curious and a lot of ink has been spilled over how to interpret the Greek, trying to pull upon the different shades of meaning that exist between "petros" and "petra," as well as conjecture over how Aramaic has "only one word for rock."

My theory on the matter explains both the Greek distinction as well as the potential words that Jesus spoke in his native dialect. But it's a bit tricky to explain, so bear with me.

It is true that in most dialects of Aramaic (especially Eastern dialects – the most prolific) there is only one main word for "rock" in the common sense, and that is generally the word כיף /kef/ (in the Emphatic כיפא /kefa/ or /kifa/). This is certainly the monicker given to Simon, and where the Greek transliteration κεφας comes from. It meant "rock" or "stone" of any size or shape, or as a building material.

However, there is an auxiliary word for "rock" or "stone" which is אבן /aven/ or /even/ which is shared in common with Hebrew, and was used as "stone" as in the material in earlier Jewish material (such as in Ezra 6:4) but in most contemporary dialects to Jesus this took on the connotation of "gemstone" (whether precious or semiprecious).

In Western Aramaic dialects (such as Jesus' own Galilean and others that were more Western-leaning like Nabatean), its meaning didn't fully specialize, and its use as "gem" was generally qualified with the adjective טב /tav/ (or "good") or when in the plural in the context of treasure, of which we have plenty of examples. Otherwise, it too was used like כיף as "rock" or "stone" of any size or as the building material.

But here's the fun thing about אבן – given the way it's inflected, it can become a clever pun with the verb בני /bny/ or "to build" which we see Jesus use in the very next portion of the verse. To illustrate, let's look at what was stated like this:

You are כיפה /kefa/ (Cephas,rock,stone) and on this אבנה /avna/ (rock,stone) אבני /evne/ ("I will build") my church.

In older orthography, the final "e" of אבני /evne/ could have even been written with a ה making it orthographically indistinguishable from אבנה /avna/ in Galilean spelling.

So there is this progression from rock, to another name for a rock, to a pun on the words rock and build. And because of the two different words used for "rock" it solves the problem of the Greek using petros first, followed by petra, if we assume it's an attempt at keeping a translational distinction (albeit for two words that are, for all intents, synonyms). :)

Or at least that's my theory.

In either case, trying to make an argument for or against Papal authority on a passage such as this based upon Greek etymology and shades of Greek meaning is a bit treacherous.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasias

Regular Member
Jan 24, 2008
5,788
1,036
St. Louis
✟54,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was planning on converting to Catholicism. But the reason why i chose Orthodoxy instead was because i find some biblical stuff that seems to contradict the ideal of the faith. Like "God does not show favoritism" just to mention a few examples, this is written both in Paul's letters and James letters. So having a pope as a above figure seem to kinda contradict that, but its also the interpretation of the matthew 16:18, with "You are Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church". Catholics atribute that to the legitimacy of popes. But thats not how orthodox see it, basically from what i have heard it has always been interpreted as "You are a rock, and upon this large amount of rock i will build my church" because Petros means rock in Greek, which is what Peter means. And the other greek word means large amount of rocks. So this was a word game as orthodox says it means. Although they agree that Peter was given the task of opening the gates of heaven though when he was given the keys. But not with the pope stuff.

Which i find to seem sensical.

But i am just wondering what your opinions are?
I can understand what you mean. It took me years of study. I think scripture Old Testament and New and history including Archaeological evidence from the Catacombs points strongly towards Papal authority. I will be doing a dialog on this in the one on one forums soon. You may want to check it out because It will hopefully answer your questions from a Jewish convert perspective as my grad school professor was a Jewish convert and he saw the office of Pope(as do many Catholic Jewish converts to be a fullfullment of several main the OT offices). Not only does he see this but some protestant and Jewish scripture sources also view this to my surprise. At any rate stick around I will let you know when the dialog with me and Rav begins. God bless you.

In Jesus through Mary,
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The Cephas connection is curious and a lot of ink has been spilled over how to interpret the Greek, trying to pull upon the different shades of meaning that exist between "petros" and "petra," as well as conjecture over how Aramaic has "only one word for rock."

My theory on the matter explains both the Greek distinction as well as the potential words that Jesus spoke in his native dialect. But it's a bit tricky to explain, so bear with me.

It is true that in most dialects of Aramaic (especially Eastern dialects – the most prolific) there is only one main word for "rock" in the common sense, and that is generally the word כיף /kef/ (in the Emphatic כיפא /kefa/ or /kifa/). This is certainly the monicker given to Simon, and where the Greek transliteration κεφας comes from. It meant "rock" or "stone" of any size or shape, or as a building material.

However, there is an auxiliary word for "rock" or "stone" which is אבן /aven/ or /even/ which is shared in common with Hebrew, and was used as "stone" as in the material in earlier Jewish material (such as in Ezra 6:4) but in most contemporary dialects to Jesus this took on the connotation of "gemstone" (whether precious or semiprecious).

In Western Aramaic dialects (such as Jesus' own Galilean and others that were more Western-leaning like Nabatean), its meaning didn't fully specialize, and its use as "gem" was generally qualified with the adjective טב /tav/ (or "good") or when in the plural in the context of treasure, of which we have plenty of examples. Otherwise, it too was used like כיף as "rock" or "stone" of any size or as the building material.

But here's the fun thing about אבן – given the way it's inflected, it can become a clever pun with the verb בני /bny/ or "to build" which we see Jesus use in the very next portion of the verse. To illustrate, let's look at what was stated like this:

You are כיפה /kefa/ (Cephas,rock,stone) and on this אבנה /avna/ (rock,stone) אבני /evne/ ("I will build") my church.

In older orthography, the final "e" of אבני /evne/ could have even been written with a ה making it orthographically indistinguishable from אבנה /avna/ in Galilean spelling.

So there is this progression from rock, to another name for a rock, to a pun on the words rock and build. And because of the two different words used for "rock" it solves the problem of the Greek using petros first, followed by petra, if we assume it's an attempt at keeping a translational distinction (albeit for two words that are, for all intents, synonyms). :)

Or at least that's my theory.
I was under the impression that that is the usual interpretation, at least among non-Papal Christians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Senod2

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
122
31
32
Norway
✟746.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Cephas connection is curious and a lot of ink has been spilled over how to interpret the Greek, trying to pull upon the different shades of meaning that exist between "petros" and "petra," as well as conjecture over how Aramaic has "only one word for rock."

My theory on the matter explains both the Greek distinction as well as the potential words that Jesus spoke in his native dialect. But it's a bit tricky to explain, so bear with me.

It is true that in most dialects of Aramaic (especially Eastern dialects – the most prolific) there is only one main word for "rock" in the common sense, and that is generally the word כיף /kef/ (in the Emphatic כיפא /kefa/ or /kifa/). This is certainly the monicker given to Simon, and where the Greek transliteration κεφας comes from. It meant "rock" or "stone" of any size or shape, or as a building material.

However, there is an auxiliary word for "rock" or "stone" which is אבן /aven/ or /even/ which is shared in common with Hebrew, and was used as "stone" as in the material in earlier Jewish material (such as in Ezra 6:4) but in most contemporary dialects to Jesus this took on the connotation of "gemstone" (whether precious or semiprecious).

In Western Aramaic dialects (such as Jesus' own Galilean and others that were more Western-leaning like Nabatean), its meaning didn't fully specialize, and its use as "gem" was generally qualified with the adjective טב /tav/ (or "good") or when in the plural in the context of treasure, of which we have plenty of examples. Otherwise, it too was used like כיף as "rock" or "stone" of any size or as the building material.

But here's the fun thing about אבן – given the way it's inflected, it can become a clever pun with the verb בני /bny/ or "to build" which we see Jesus use in the very next portion of the verse. To illustrate, let's look at what was stated like this:

You are כיפה /kefa/ (Cephas,rock,stone) and on this אבנה /avna/ (rock,stone) אבני /evne/ ("I will build") my church.

In older orthography, the final "e" of אבני /evne/ could have even been written with a ה making it orthographically indistinguishable from אבנה /avna/ in Galilean spelling.

So there is this progression from rock, to another name for a rock, to a pun on the words rock and build. And because of the two different words used for "rock" it solves the problem of the Greek using petros first, followed by petra, if we assume it's an attempt at keeping a translational distinction (albeit for two words that are, for all intents, synonyms). :)

Or at least that's my theory.

In either case, trying to make an argument for or against Papal authority on a passage such as this based upon Greek etymology and shades of Greek meaning is a bit treacherous.

Actually there is another word for "Massive rock in aramaic" which annoyed a catholic on that forum. Its called "SHU`A"
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=32716
 
Upvote 0

Senod2

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
122
31
32
Norway
✟746.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Well I'm not Roman Catholic or Orthodox, but I think interpreting the passage as pointing to the RCC conception of the pope is a huge stretch.
That might be. But i am mostly concluding on the "Non favoritism part". And to answer the above, he was a highly ranked bishop i believe. But not in the sense catholics like to believe. I just don't find any legitimate idea of having a pope in general. More or less.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,021,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you deny that Peter was the leader of the apostles?
The question is whether Peter's leadership meant that he was infallible - and whether it was intended that the Patriarch of Rome inherited the infallibility (which I don't believe was there in the first place). We (Orthodox Christians) don't question this historic 'first among equals' status of Rome. However, Peter founded more than one patriarchate (Rome and Antioch). Peter did not assert his opinion as the ultimate truth in the one council we have listed in the Bible (he accepted Jame's decision). Centuries of the Church before the split did not consider the pope to be infallible, even in ex cathedra. The Roman patriarch took the honor given to the Rome to a level higher than was originally given, and to a level higher than what is spiritually appropriate.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Do you deny that Peter was the leader of the apostles?
The Early Church was far from thinking so. Some Fathers thought it was Peter and Paul jointly, some James, some John, etc. We may conclude that Peter was influential and had been given a special role that we saw on Pentecost, but "the leader," is questionable and anything approaching a Pope figure even more so.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,021,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Early Church was far from thinking so. Some Fathers thought it was Peter and Paul jointly, some James, some John, etc. We may conclude that Peter was influential and had been given a special role that we saw on Pentecost, but "the leader," is questionable and anything approaching a Pope figure even more so.
I'd agree with this. Even today, the Orthodox Church upholds the combination of Peter and Paul being leaders - however even that doesn't imply infallibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gregory95
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The question is whether Peter's leadership meant that he was infallible - and whether it was intended that the Patriarch of Rome inherited the infallibility (which I don't believe was there in the first place). We (Orthodox Christians) don't question this historic 'first among equals' status of Rome. However, Peter founded more than one patriarchate (Rome and Antioch). Peter did not assert his opinion as the ultimate truth in the one council we have listed in the Bible (he accepted Jame's decision). Centuries of the Church before the split did not consider the pope to be infallible, even in ex cathedra. The Roman patriarch took the honor given to the Rome to a level higher than was originally given, and to a level higher than what is spiritually appropriate.


That is a separate question. The first question must be answered before moving on.

Do you agree that Peter was the leader of the apostles?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,683
8,019
PA
Visit site
✟1,021,660.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That is a separate question. The first question must be answered before moving on.

Do you agree that Peter was the leader of the apostles?
The statement I made is integral to the answer to your question. I agree that he was a leader of the apostles, along with Paul (as I mentioned in my post to Albion). That said, I cannot speak for @graceandpeace, as she is not Orthodox. If we were to say that Peter is a leader of the 12 disciples - we would say that he was a representative leader. That is not the same as the position the pope holds in the Catholic Church.

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2010/0...and-all-praised-leaders-of-the-apostles-peter

5681ab77b4c57e23cf9748c30caaffef.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.