Posted on 04/05/2009 4:11:27 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Congressional Quarterly has posted a transcript of “Fox News Sunday,” including this exchange between Chris Wallace and Newt Gingrich about the former House speaker’s conversion to Catholicism:
WALLACE: Mr. Gingrich, you have been a Baptist most of your life, and last Sunday you converted to Catholicism. Why, sir?GINGRICH: I’m not talking about this much publicly, but let me just say that I found over the course of the last decade, attending the basilica, meeting with Monsignor Rossi, reading the literature, that there was a peace in my soul and a sense of well being in the Catholic Church, and I found the mass of conversion last Sunday one of the most powerful moments of my life.
WALLACE: You have — it’s no secret — been married and divorced twice. Will you be able to participate fully in communion and all the other rites of the Catholic Church?
GINGRICH: Yes, we have done everything within the law of the church, following all of the rules of the church over the last 10 years. And it’s been a process. It’s been a very long process and something which was deeply affected, in part, by Pope Benedict XVI’s visit and the opportunity I had to sit in — as you know, my wife, Calista, sings at the basilica every Sunday, and I was allowed as a spouse to be there as part of the vespers program when the pope came. It’s been a long process.
WALLACE: And if I might ask, just briefly, what is it about the pope’s visit that led to this?
GINGRICH: I really believe, first of all, seeing the joy in his eyes, listening to his message, and I really believe that his basic statement, Christ our hope, is right. And I think much of what’s wrong with our country and with the western world is a function of looking inside ourselves, not just looking at money or looking at our wallets.
"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’
"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."
For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.
"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"
"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.
"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.
"I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek."
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context.
Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
Matthew 16:18
Let's diagram the sentence in question:
And I say
Jesus is speaking
to thee:
directly TO someone
That thou art Peter;
Jesus is speaking directly to Peter, making Peter the direct object of this sentence. But WAIT! Something ELSE very significant just happened here! In the previous sentence Jesus was speaking to the SAME PERSON who is named "Simon Bar-Jonah" - or Simon, son of Jonah, or son of Dove [1] is now renamed "Cephas" or "Peter" - which means "rock" or "stone" if you prefer. [2]
and upon this rock
The predicate noun of this sentence is clearly "this rock" and to whom did Jesus just give the name meaning "rock" or "stone?" Simon/Peter! And it is upon THIS ROCK - Jesus is talking about something...
I will build my church,
That "something" which Jesus was talking about is the building - which is the verb of this sentence - of His Church - which is the indirect object of the sentence.
So reviewing a bit; Jesus renames Simon to a name meaning rock or stone and then immediately states it will be "upon this rock" that He would build His Church. Jesus is the Builder of the Church which would be built upon this Rock. It would be quite strange to think He was building upon Himself - or upon Peter's confession [3].
and the gates of hell
The indirect object here is the "gates of hell."
shall not prevail against it.
Again, we're back to discussing the Church, the indirect object of this sentence, as the "it" which the gates of hell shall not prevail against.
Footnotes: [1] "Jonah" means "dove" in Hebrew, and the dove is symbolic of the Holy Ghost in Scripture. So the meaning can be that he, Simon, is "Son of the Holy Ghost." http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Jonah or http://www.behindthename.com/name/jonah
[2] "Peter" means "rock" or "stone." http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Peter or http://www.behindthename.com/name/peter
[3] The two most common objections to the Catholic position is that Jesus is either talking about "this rock" being himself or "this rock" being Peter's confession, and not Peter himself. Neither of these make sense, based on the fact that the Builder would not be building upon Himself, nor is Peter's confession even part of this sentence, directly or indirectly.
When you tell me you believe on Jesus as your Saviour, I believe you. But not all Catholics or even church goers have assurance of their salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ. They’re always trying to add something else to faith. I’m glad, truly glad, you know Him as your Saviour. There’s no better way to live.
He Himself called Peter the Rock.
He called HIMSELF the Rock and Peter a pebble.
I was born into the Episcopal Church but spent 35 years in a Methodist Church. I am now and have been for the past 25 years in a nondenominational church under the umbrella of Elim Fellowship of Lima, NY (near Rochester). I don’t concern myself with popes, only Jesus. He’s the head of The Church.
That is a very common misunderstanding of Greek.
Pope Peter I was the Rock, just as Christ said.
Congratulations, you agree with the Catholic Church.
You know how ex-Catholics can be some of the most vicious enemies of the Catholic Church?
Imagine if you had one as your non-denominational “pastor.”
The Bible also says to be saved and be baptized. Salvation comes before baptism. I agree that baptism is something necessary for cleansing of our sin. And that it comes after a child or adult professes Christ as Saviour.
I thank you for your kind words. I AM home, Mark. I am exactly where God wants me to be and where He put me over 25 years ago. Blessings. Mary
A choice is not made by any rite. A choice is made when you are old enough to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and decide you want Him to come into your life. Rites have little or nothing to do with it.
Do you NEVER stop and just THINK logically...just close your eyes and contemplate that what I said could possibly be true....you have been lied to and are afraid to face facts. I'm not asking you to become Catholic, I'm asking you to believe the TRUTH....PETER was the first POPE. Good grief....Jesus TOLD you things that you refuse to believe.
Yes
Some "ministries" work hard to eliminate the reality of His Truth, in exchange for false traditions of men.
We do that in CONFIRMATION!! We CONFIRM our infant BAPTISM or even our adult BAPTISM......CONFIRMATION....look it up! Mary, your mind has been poisoned against Catholic teaching for some reason.
We do that in CONFIRMATION!! We CONFIRM our infant BAPTISM or even our adult BAPTISM......CONFIRMATION....look it up! Mary, your mind has been poisoned against Catholic teaching for some reason.
Have you not read the 3 or 4 replies to you about CONFIRMATION?? Confirmation is a CHOICE....THE Choice to confirm your Baptism into Christianity. I feel very sad that you can’t or won’t get that.
OMG!! ELIM...i.e. ELIMINATE!! You are a deep thinker, Petronski! I thought it was just an anagram of LIMA, but by jove, I think you;ve nailed it!
Exo 15:27 And the children of Israel came into Elim, where there were twelve fountains of water, and seventy palm trees: and they encamped by the waters.
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.