Posted on 03/30/2007 11:03:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I stumbled across this and thought it was both useful and fun. The book that contains this info: "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" is well regarded. From: catholicity.elcore.net/SimonIsTheRock.html
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”
-- New International Version (A footnote in the NIV to the word “Peter” says “Peter means rock”.)
“And I say also vnto thee, That thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it”
-- 1611 King James Version (The 1611 edition of the KJV has a marginal cross-reference at Matthew 16:18 to John 1:42)
“And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros — a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra — a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it]”
-- Amplified Bible
(A footnote in the AB to the word “Peter” says “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)”)
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (emphasis added)“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative "this", whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.“Matthew”
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.“The Gospel of Matthew”
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.Matthew 14-28
Actually Mark, that's factually incorrect, if you compare apples to apples. From the figures and statistics I've studied, any given Catholic priest (historically) is four times more likely to molest an underage child (either sex) than any given "non-hierarchical" pastor. That number IIRC increases by a factor of (at least) 8 if the comparison is made between a Catholic priest and a "mainline Protestant" pastor. If you've got something that shows otherwise, I'd love to see how it stacks up against the other study data that I've read.
"The very thought of it is ridiculous to me - because mortals can never see "all that there is" from God's perspective - only what He wants us to know."
Indeed. And He was very clear. He created the seven Holy Sacraments for us, because He wanted us to be saved. He gave us His only Son, who is God Himself, together with the Paraclete, because He wants us saved.
Thus we have Baptism, by water, blood or desire. We have Holy Orders through the Apostolic Line, created by God. They administer the Confirmation that we are, indeed, soldiers of Christ as the Church Militant. He instituted the salvic Confessional or Reconciliation where we may, through the Apostolic powers be forgiven our transgressions. The Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist where Calvary is daily given to us anew. In our final hour, He gives us the comfort of Healing in Extreme Unction and for those of us called to the marital estate, we have Matrimony.
In the Seven Sacraments we find Eternal Life, Forgiveness, governance of the family and the Church, healing, enrollment in His Army and the Sacrifice that sets us all free.
Deo Gratias!
Your post 88 was already zotted by the Moderator so I missed it, but I've found you to be a Christian man, despite our theological differences and I'll assume it wasn't meant ill.
We've never had a situation where 12% of our priests had sex with the members and 40% had inappropriate contact.
These are from the Baptists themselves. Again, I don't mean to point the finger at Baptists, I would just compare - I happened on this article first. And the folks that have rightfully been looking into Catholic clergy abuse of children are now looking several of the non-hierarchical sects.
Celibacy ain't it. These ministers are all able to marry and have as an active a sex life as they wish. Oh, and statistics sometimes get a little muddled as well. Many of the ministers who molest their own children get into the stats as domestic child molesting rather than clerical child molesting, which would put the figures up a little higher yet.
(Most) Baptists don't consider themselves Protestant. Would you slander those pastors and congregations that came out of the Reformation for the ills of the Baptists?
Should all Catholic parishes be measured by the standards set by the Diocese of Boston?
These are from the Baptists themselves...
FWIW, while I think an enlightening and educational thread could be made of this subject, I do not want to hijack the current thread on Sola Scriptura in order to have it.
Feel free to start up another thread on the subject, and I will rejoin the discussion there.
You did. Here:
From the figures and statistics I've studied, any given Catholic priest (historically) is four times more likely to molest an underage child (either sex) than any given "non-hierarchical" pastor.
Thank You.
That is a global comparitive statistic for both groups's likelihood, and not one using Boston alone. That would be unfair, just as using a Baptist-only statistic to accuse all Protestants of "greater abuse" would be equally unfair.
And like most statistics, useless. Most of the abuse came from a few serial abusers. In every case they were in violation of Scripture and Church Law.
Amen to that.
Indeed. My experience with my Baptist friends is that they are doctrinal cousins in the Faith. We agree far more than not.
And a second Amen to that, too!
It is my assertion, however, that a person led by the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 3, 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2, etc.) --- and not by his own self will --- would evidence certain properties as follows (to put the questions as statements:)
2. Nothing would be as important to him as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Indeed, that would be all that truly mattered to him.
3. Would not complain or hesitate if God required him to give up all that he had, including his beloved family and friends.
4. Would believe God.
5. Would trust God.
6. Would love those who hate him.
7. Would love everyone else as well, not in words alone but in deeds.
BTW, I was very pleased that this Pope's First Encyclical was on love. Evidently that will be the theme of his papacy. I wish, however, he had spent more words on the love of God than on the love of neighbor. That is, after all, the Great Commandment (Matt 22.)
If I don't get to meet you in this life, I look forward to meeting you in the next one.
IMO it's all the same life :D
I was watching a Fr. Corapi talk once and he had a wonderful line that underlines what you've written: He said in essence, we should be willing to give up our lives right now because we desire heaven so totally and completely. It definitely is a gut-check, because how often are we truly willing to die right now for heaven.
We must be willing to give it all up or we're being hypocritical in saying that we love God absolutely.
Another I practice is comparing my thoughts, words and deeds with the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5 (paraphrased): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control.
If I see any of the opposites, e.g. hate, sorrow, anxiety, meanness, etc. - it's time to hit the knees in repentance for my self-will run awry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.