Help me answer this...

[Dominus Fidelis]

I am debating with a non-Catholic that does not believe in the Papacy. He made a point that I am having trouble refuting.

He shows an example in the Bible where Paul rebukes Peter. He then shows a similiar one where Paul rebukes a Pharisee, and then apologizes when he learns that the Pharisee is a leader of his church. But Paul doesnt apologize for doing the same to Peter.

The point being...if Paul knew Peter was the leader of the new Church, He wouldn't have rebuked him, since Paul followed the Hebrew Scriptures forbidding that type of action.

Paul called the High Priest in Jerusalem, in effect, a hypocrite. When informed of this fact he apologizes and quotes Scripture that forbids rebuking a 'leader' in this way. If Peter were the 'chief shepherd' the same passage Paul recited as authoritative, would have applied to Peter. Clearly it did not, or Paul would never have said that. Just compare the two passages (Gal. 2:11-16) (Acts 23:1-5).

Any insights?

--

Acts 23:1-5

Paul looked intently at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have conducted myself with a perfectly clear conscience before God to this day."

The high priest Ananias ordered his attendants to strike his mouth.

Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall. Do you indeed sit in judgment upon me according to the law and yet in violation of the law order me to be struck?"

The attendants said, "Would you revile God's high priest?"

Paul answered, "Brothers, I did not realize he was the high priest. For it is written, 'You shall not curse a ruler of your people.'"

Galations 2:11-14

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Just because the Bible doesn't say St. Paul apologized... doesn't mean he didn't.

The lack of evidence, isn't evidence.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

I mean, even most Protestants these days will accpet the fact that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

If you look at the entire New Testament - Matt. to Rev. - St. Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. St. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).

Also, one of my favorites:

15. When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

16. He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

17. He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. -- John 21:15-17

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I know about that line of evidence, and I think it is good. But I wanted to be able to specifically counter his argument.

I was thinking that Paul was talking to Jews in the Acts dialogue, and quoting Jewish law, which Paul no longer followed...so the comparison doesn't really work when Paul is relating to Peter in Galatians...does that sound reasonable?

 

[Metanoia02]

These are different situations.

First, Paul was correcting Peter on his behavior among the Gentiles. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of Peter's actions. As you well know Papal infallability has nothing to do with the hypocritical actions of the Pope.

Secondly, Paul cursed the high priest, not simply corrected him as he did with Peter. He said "God strike you , you whitewashed wall". That was very strong language. Not realizing that Ananias was the High priest, he apologized and complied with the OT law of not cursing a prince of the people.

In one instance you have Paul correcting Peter. The other you have Paul cursing a high priest. These are not similar situations. Paul understood the difference. This does not reflect Paul's lack of understanding of the position of Peter as the leader of the Church. The Pope has never been above correction for personal behavior. But we should never curse him either.

 

[Benedicta00]

Met,

That was good.

Def,

Also when Paul says that he stood up to Peter, in the original Greek he uses the word Kephas which we know means solid rock and we know that in Matthew Peter’s name was changed to “little rock.” Paul used the name “solid rock” when he said that he stood up to Peter indicating that he stood up to the solid rock, the head of the Church.

There is nothing wrong with correcting the behavior of a Pope. St. Catherine did it.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks, that helps.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Very nice answers Metanoia02 and Michelle!!!

Esp. Metanoia02

 

[Benedicta00]

Defenders,

I actually love that argument because it does not disprove anything but further proves the authority of the Catholic Church.

It shows that there was scandal even in the days of Peter and Paul, that the behavior of a bishop and his ability to teach us what has already been given to us by Christ is not so much a issue.

Tell this person that there are have been bad popes and bishops in the Church since Jesus walked among us and there always will be and the teaching of the apostles never change and Paul shows us this in Galatians.

 

[Wolseley]

Paul rebuked Peter on a matter of Peter's personal behavior; he did not rebuke Peter on a matter of doctrine or teaching or Peter's instructions to the Church at large.


It would be equivalent to one of the Cardinals today telling John Paul, "I'm sorry, Holy Father, but you simply cannot conduct a private audience attired in Bermuda shorts and a sleeveless T-shirt that says "Hang Ten at Hawaii". It simply is not done!"

 

[nyj]

Also when Paul says that he stood up to Peter, in the original Greek he uses the word Kephas which we know means solid rock and we know that in Matthew Peter’s name was changed to “little rock.” Paul used the name “solid rock” when he said that he stood up to Peter indicating that he stood up to the solid rock, the head of the Church.

No it wasn't. Who told you this?

Exegesis on Simon->Peter : http://www.geocities.com/okc_catholic/articles/cephas.html

There are those who claim that the use of two different words in the translation demonstrates a difference in Christ's meaning, "petros" meaning "little rock" and "petra" meaning "massive rock." First-century Koine Greek made no such distinction, except in poetry. If Christ had wished to refer to Peter as "little rock," the correct translation would have been from the Aramaic word "kevna" (which Christ did not use) to the Greek "lithos," not "petros".

 

[thereselittleflower]

Met,

That was good.

Def,

Also when Paul says that he stood up to Peter, in the original Greek he uses the word Kephas which we know means solid rock and we know that in Matthew Peter’s name was changed to “little rock.” Paul used the name “solid rock” when he said that he stood up to Peter indicating that he stood up to the solid rock, the head of the Church.

There is nothing wrong with correcting the behavior of a Pope. St. Catherine did it.

Shelb

I am curious as to why you accept that Peter was called "little rock" by Jesus in Matthew, when in the Aramaic it is given as Kepha(s). . . . everything I have gleaned from my studies show no difference between petros and petra . .

In Matthew, the words petra and petros mean the same thing . .Peter wasn't called the little rock . .but Cephas or Kephas in the Aramaic . . it is an argument that petros means "little rock" in the greek, but it is merely the masculine of petra and used for his name . . from all I understand, in everyday greek of the time, there was no functional difference between the two words, but Matthew was using a play on words. I did a lot of looking into his one before accepting Peter as the first Pope and the validity of the office of the Pope . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Little rock is a protestant tactic which ignores that Cephas simply means rock in Aramaic.

Petros means small rock, but they only reason Cephas was translated into Petros, not Petras (meaning large rock) was that Petras is a feminine name in Greek. Cephas is gender neutral in Aramaic.

Regardless, its a moronic tactic...who else got a new name from Jesus? Nobody. Peter was unique in the NT. In the OT, people like Abram and Jacob got new names for their NEW ROLES.

 

[nyj]

Petros means small rock...

Lithos -> small stone.

Petra -> rock.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Lithos -> small stone.

Petra -> rock.

What does Petros mean, then?

 

[Credo]

Petros is the masculine form of Petra. Petra, a feminine Greek word, means "rock", however when renaming a male to "rock" in Greek, you wouldn't use Petra. This is like naming a boy Michelle rather than Michael. The masculine Petros is introduced.

And we must also remember that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic the word for rock is "Cephas" - this is what Jesus called Simon when He named him "rock".

For more info, see: Peter the Rock.

 

[nyj]

What does Petros mean, then?

In ancient greek it didn't mean anything except "Saint Peter". When anyone ever referred to a rock, they'd use the word "petra". In english, we don't change the gender of inanimate objects, the greek didn't either. The only reason it was necessary to use the word "petros" is because it'd be silly to give a man, Peter, a female genderized name (petra).

If you anyone doesn't believe me, go to http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon and type in "petros" into the Greek->English dictionary. Click "Ancient Greek" since it was "kione greek" that was used to write the gospels and see what you get. If you don't click the "ancient greek" box you won't get anything... because "petro(s)" isn't a word used by the greek... petra(s) is though.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The only distinction between petros and petra is found in classical greek poetic usage . .which was a few hundred years before Christ, and there it has been found to have the distinction of petros being "little rock" or "stone" and only there . .

But we can't go back to ancient classical greek to tell us what it meant in common usage at the time of Jesus - at the time of Jesus, there was no distinction . .petros was not really used . . petra was used, but Matthew is making a play on words amd of necessity, uses the masculine form to name Peter (as has been stated by others, in Aramaic, there is no gender distinction) . .

Petros means Peter .. it was never used as a personal name that we can find evidence of before this .. and to name someone Rock was extremely unusual and striking!

Look at the surroundings of the whole interchange . .

They are in Cessarea . . there is a massive stone cliff, on top of that stone cliff is the temple of Apollos, the son of Zeus . . Jesus is drawing a picture of what He is doing in this setting . . with this overbearing massive rock right there, He tells Peter he is the Rock and that He is going to build His Church on this very same rock (the Greek conjunctive phrase means this, so ties the two rock together to mean the same thing, Peter) . . and He says the gates of hades will no prevail against it . . well, at the bottom of this massive rock cliff, there is a cave with a river running deep inside of it, it was known as the gates of hades . . quite a picture to set everything clear in the disciiple's minds!




Peace in Him!

 

[pmarquette]

Perhaps a better response is the events in the Exodus where Jethro speaks to Moses
about doing all the work himself . Moses raises up the rulers of the congregation : rulers of 10 , 50 , 100, 1000 , which is essentially the form of Church government you have now with different names .... priest , monsigeur , bishop , cardinal , appostolic delegate , pope .....

 

[The Thadman]

There are those who claim that the use of two different words in the translation demonstrates a difference in Christ's meaning, "petros" meaning "little rock" and "petra" meaning "massive rock." First-century Koine Greek made no such distinction, except in poetry. If Christ had wished to refer to Peter as "little rock," the correct translation would have been from the Aramaic word "kevna" (which Christ did not use) to the Greek "lithos," not "petros".

"Kevno'" is not in any lexicons of 1st Century Aramaic that I have access to, so it looks like a later Syriac Aramaic word. The source for that word might be confusing "Ke'fo'" with the "-no" particle attached ("Kepno'"), which would, lexically mean "a current instance of rock" (a smaller stone or something made of stone) but I have not seen that construction used either (in 1st Century Aramaic or anywhere else).

"Ke'fo'" is the only 1st Century Aramaic word for "rock," and it's as generic as you can get.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o