Upon this rock

[Rick Otto]

You can say 10 times....it still doesn't make it true. Even St Cyprian disagrees with you.

You address a charge of many pro with one con?
Credibility anyone?

 

[Rick Otto]

balogna. They had the same arguments we are having now.

Isn't that testimony against the myth of early church catholicity in this regard?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Isn't that stuff called Baloney?

 

[Meowzltov]

You have yet to respond to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter's confession, according to the research of the good Bishop of St Louis.

They were by no means unanimous. The issue was debated.

 

[Meowzltov]

Isn't that testimony against the myth of early church catholicity in this regard?

Not against the papacy, only against this particular justification. Remember also that Matthew was not considered scripture in that day.

 

[Rick Otto]

I am Orthodox. Catholic, though.

This has just topped the record for self contradiction, unless you made a typo when you capitalized "orthodox".

 

[Rick Otto]

Not against the papacy, only against this particular justification. Remember also that Matthew was not considered scripture in that day.

by whom?

 

[Meowzltov]

Isn't that stuff called Baloney?

I looked it up online. A grammarist said, "Bologna refers to a type of sausage made of finely ground meat that has been cooked and smoked. Baloney is nonsense." http://grammarist.com/usage/baloney-bologna/ I am surprised. I thought when something was nonsense you essentially called it the sausage. I'll probably switch to baloney now.

 

[Rick Otto]

Please note carefully what is written in the Greek:καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος (stone) και επι ταυτη τη πετρα (Rock) οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης. The very fact that two different words are used in the same verse should alert the "alert" reader.

Let's disregard the so-called Aramaic version of Matthew. Let's stick with the facts. The New Testament is written in Greek, and Matthew also wrote in Greek (as did all the others). Where the Aramaic word is found in the text we have "Cephas" (Kepha), but where it is "Peter", it is Petros.

This is called putting an additional spin on the spin. Politicians are good at doing that, and the popes were politicians first and foremost.

(Does a double take...)
I agree with you about staying with the Greek, but please clarify for me... who put the Aramaic in the Greek gospel?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The thing is that the gospel according to saint Matthew while written in Greek records a conversation very likely spoken in Aramaic so that is why Aramaic gets mentioned.

And it ought to be noted that the gospel according to saint Matthew is written in Koine Greek and in that dialect of Greek Pteros and Petra mean the same thing only the gender differs. The rock is called petra (like mother earth really ) and the man is called Petros because he is a man.

 

[Rick Otto]

The thing is that the gospel according to saint Matthew while written in Greek records a conversation very likely spoken in Aramaic so that is why Aramaic gets mentioned.

And it ought to be noted that the gospel according to saint Matthew is written in Koine Greek and in that dialect of Greek Pteros and Petra mean the same thing only the gender differs. The rock is called petra (like mother earth really ) and the man is called Petros because he is a man.

So rather than this interpretation being unquestionably valid, it is in your own words "very likely".
Thanks for explaining that, MC. (You have "Rapper" initials. I'm imagining you in large sunglasses and gold lame' pontaloons. )

I am impressed how huge it became based on a guess.

 

[prodromos]

They were by no means unanimous. The issue was debated.

Yet you've been posting like it was unanimous that the Fathers interpret Matt 16:18 as Peter being the rock. Don't you think your response isn't just a little bit hypocritical?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So rather than this interpretation being unquestionably valid, it is in your own words "very likely".
Thanks for explaining that, MC. (You have "Rapper" initials. I'm imagining you in large sunglasses and gold lame' pontaloons. )

I am impressed how huge it became based on a guess.

Very likely is enough. Besides the Catholic Church teaches it and that makes it a certainty.

 

[Rick Otto]

Very likely is enough. Besides the Catholic Church teaches it and that makes it a certainty.

LOL! I have to love that.
I remember thinking like that in parochial school.
Lots of drama.

 

[prodromos]

From the trail of quotes in the posts related to the one to which I replied.

Still can't see where you got 6 from.

Do you really think that 44 church fathers (from what age of church history?) held such a view? And do you believe that each of the five categories in the Archbishop's list are mutually exclusive? Surely you are aware that some church fathers taught two or more of the interpretations in the list?

Of course, but even if 17 of the 44 also taught that Peter was the rock, that still leaves another 27 who didn't.

And does it really matter if 44 did? The Church teaches that it is saint Peter who is the rock and a careful exegesis of Matthew 16 yields the same result; namely that saint Peter is the Rock upon whom Christ builds his church.

The Orthodox Church does not take such a narrow view. It teaches that St Peter is the rock because of his confession. He is a type of all who make that confession.

By the way, Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis did his work in 1870 AD prior to the first Vatican council and his prepared speech was not delivered at the council. Further Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibility before it was declared as dogma by the first Vatican council. So all things considered it does not seem that his list was very significant in the debate and I don't see why it is significant in this thread either. Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis also repudiated his own speech and the list in it as based on a misapprehension of the teaching of the council of Trent's teaching on the right use of the church fathers.

Well he couldn't exactly go against Trent and remain a bishop in good standing, could he. It appears that all the dissenting voices got railroaded.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
The Orthodox Church does not take such a narrow view. It teaches that St Peter is the rock because of his confession. He is a type of all who make that confession.
...

The church to which I referred is the Catholic Church. Your comment about being "railroaded" is apparently intended to reflect poorly both on the bishop (implying that he adopted a view that he did not really believe) and on the Catholic Church (which your posts implies did the railroading). I can't help but think that kind of remark is in poor taste because it is close to calumny against both Archbishop Kenrick of St Louis and the Catholic Church.

 

[concretecamper]

You address a charge of many pro with one con?
Credibility anyone?

Yeah...he said it three time...I said it once....I guess that means he wins.....lol

 

[concretecamper]

I would encourage everyone to look at the canons from the Synod of Sadica in 344 AD. I would suspect everyone would agree that this is early enough that the particpants be considered the fathers of the Church.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Regarding Matthew 16:18-19

Albion, I have always found Protestant assertions that somehow the "rock" that Jesus builds the church on is Peter's faith, and other logical backflips, to be rediculous. Anything other than the "rock" referring to Peter is obviously taking the verse out of context. Don't you agree? And if so, how else do you interpret this verse other than Jesus making Peter the authority of the Church?

If you use solely an English translation your stance does make sense. However, Christ used two different words in reference to Peter, and that which is translated "rock". The word for Peter really doesn't translate well into "rock". It translates to "pebble". It takes a "logical backflip" to equate the two words that Christ used.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah...he said it three time...I said it once....I guess that means he wins.....lol

You're a good sport, not a sore loser.