Catholic Problems

[Paprika]

Peter's new name became "petros", how is that not clear enough?

Indeed, so why did Jesus say on this petra I will build my church?

[Spartacus]

We do not have what Jesus said in Aramaic. What we do have is the Greek, which is why I am dealing with the Greek. If you do want to make an argument from a reconstruction of the Aramaic, feel free to do so, but I think it'll need much more detail and rigor then you have given it.

The only evidence I need in order to know that the original re-naming was to Cephas, not petros, is the sheer number of times Simon is referred to as Cephas in the New Testament.

[Bill the Cat]

Peter's new name became "petros", how is that not clear enough?

It's just a name. Just like Saul of Tarsus becams Paul (meaning small), but I think we can all agree that Paul himself was anything to the church but small. These newly given names described characteristics that were to be emulated by the church, or things to build it on as it were.

[Paprika]

The only evidence I need in order to know that the original re-naming was to Cephas, not petros, is the sheer number of times Simon is referred to as Cephas in the New Testament.

Then please explain why Jesus says "on this petra" He will build his church, and not "on this petros" or "on you".

[Spartacus]

Then please explain why Jesus says "on this petra" He will build his church, and not "on this petros" or "on you".

Because petra was the more common word, and was more readily understood to refer to a large rock. Petros, being masculine noun, was used to bridge Simon with petra, with which he could not as easily be identified because petra is a feminine noun.

Are you familiar with the phenomenon of gendered nouns?

[Paprika]

Because petra was the more common word, and was more readily understood to refer to a large rock. Petros, being masculine noun, was used to bridge Simon with petra, with which he could not as easily be identified because petra is a feminine noun.

Are you familiar with the phenomenon of gendered nouns?

Yes. Please do show how gender in Greek would require such a 'bridging'.

[Spartacus]

Yes. Please do show how gender in Greek would require such a 'bridging'.

Don't know that much about Greek, actually, but it makes a heckuvalot more sense than deciding that petra must refer to some other unclear antecedent in the passage.

[Paprika]

Don't know that much about Greek, actually, but it makes a heckuvalot more sense than deciding that petra must refer to some other unclear antecedent in the passage.

Again, I'm not deciding petra must be referring to something else. However, as I understand it, the Catholic position which I'm questioning is dependent on petra referring to Peter. Thus, I am asking TT (and you since you've joined it) to show that it does.

[One Bad Pig]

Stop dodging. Either respond to the points or admit you can't.

<...>

Oh my, more whining and mockery instead of responding to any of the points? I guess that makes it clear of which one of us is actually interested in honest debate, and which one is just interested in slinging mud.

I dislike James White because he's a disingenuous jerkwad with an ego the size of Great Britain. Heck, at one point, he actually compared his detractors to radical Muslim terrorists.
<...>This is all listed, once again, in the article by the Catholic Legate I linked to, if you would bother to actually read it instead of scoffing at it.

Who's slinging mud here?

I already read the article. Here's what I found so objectionable...

Source: Legate article

Again, if one carefully reads this text a number of things come to light. First and foremost, Honorius is not mentioned among those who are "minded contrary to our orthodox faith"; that is, "Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter and Theodore". He may share their punishment but not the reason for it. If he were a heretic and positively taught the doctrine of Monothelitism, our opponents must provide some plausible explanation why deference was shown to Honorius by not including him in the list of being "contrary to the orthodox faith". Unless our opponents wishe to appeal to the Bishop of Rome's primacy and the supreme office that he held in the Church as a reason for Honorius' omission, the alternatives are few and far between.

© Copyright Original Source

Strictly speaking, it is true that Honorius is not listed with the rest. However, that's not because of deference but because he's specifically being singled out as "expelled" and "anathematized" because " in all respects [Honorius] followed [Sergius'] view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

Source: Catholic Legate

Secondly, what precisely did Honorius write to Sergius? As already cited above, Honorius defended the orthodox position of Christ's one human will and that he agreed that silence should be imposed on the Church. It was these writings (and not some concocted heretical pronouncement) which the Council is referring to when it says "because of what we found written by him to Sergius" that it condemned Honorius' actions in foro externo. In effect, the Council is rightly condemning Honorius for giving practical but not theological confirmation to the heresy.

© Copyright Original Source

So Pope Agatho and the Council is "rightly condemning Honorius" for a letter which CL describes as "defending the orthodox position"?

Source: Catholic Legate

Thirdly, there are two other issues in the text, both contained in the phrase "[Honorius] followed [Sergius'] view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The latter phrase "confirmed his impious doctrines" does not, by itself, convict Honorius of heresy since one may confirm something either by silence (and, in this case, neglect) or by a pronounced teaching. Therefore, the key part of the phrase hinges on "followed his view". If this phrase means that Honorius believed the heresy, then our position would be certainly wounded. However, if the phrase in question refers rather to Sergius' disciplinary request to impose silence on the Church, then it is our opponents whose position is called into question. In point of fact, while it is true that the Latin has "sequi mentem ejus", which is ambiguous, and may mean either view (i.e. either following Sergius's heretical doctrine or following Sergius' request for silence), the original Greek text, of which the Latin is a translation has, without any ambiguity, "followed the counsel."

© Copyright Original Source

This is a valiant attempt to argue that Honorius is merely being censured by being silent when he should have spoken out. Curiously, CL neglects to comment on the phrase "in all respects" - because it completely undermines his argument. Also, by the by, CL admits of the meaning from the Catholic Encyclopedia which you questioned - though I'm not sure why he is so confident that the Latin is a translation from the Greek when the letter originated in Rome. Maybe you missed that when you read the article.

Source: Catholic Legate

Fourthly, the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 were dispersed widely throughout the East and West, and followed the same basic protocol as the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople and anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, but, as my thesis has maintained, Pope Honorius' name is curiously missing from the anathemas. The council even went on to assert that from the very beginnings of Monothelitism, no Roman Pontiff had departed from keeping the Catholic Faith.

© Copyright Original Source

As shown by the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Honorius, there is good reason why he was not mentioned in the Acts of the Lateran Council:


If you'll note carefully, you'll see that the Lateran Council was not about Monothelitism - it was about the Ecthesis and Type, which were not issued until after Honorius' death. As Honorius had not positively assented to either, his name was not mentioned.

So, all in all, not an article that adheres well to the facts I can check.

[Spartacus]

Again, I'm not deciding petra must be referring to something else. However, as I understand it, the Catholic position which I'm questioning is dependent on petra referring to Peter. Thus, I am asking TT (and you since you've joined it) to show that it does.

Cephas cephas cephas cephas cephas cephas cephas

Simon would not be referred to consistently through the NT as Cephas unless that were the name Jesus had given him. Cephas is equivalent in meaning to petra. It's a big rock, a foundation stone. Simon Peter, also known as Cephas, is clearly the foundation stone, and this name clearly has significance that neither Paul's name change nor the nickname of the sons of Zebedee can be said to have.

[One Bad Pig]

Don't know that much about Greek, actually, but it makes a heckuvalot more sense than deciding that petra must refer to some other unclear antecedent in the passage.

Peter's confession is hardly unclear. And while Peter was clearly a leader in the early church, Paul arguably did much more foundation-laying than Peter. Further, it seems out of character for Jesus to tell someone something that would have a strong tendency to engender pride.

[Paprika]

Cephas is equivalent in meaning to petra.

Scholarly citation, please.

[TimelessTheist]

Indeed, so why did Jesus say on this petra I will build my church?

The feminine form was more commonly used to refer to a large rock, instead of a small rock, however they couldn't use tge same word for Peter's title because Peter was a man, and the noun "petras" is feminine.

[Paprika]

The feminine form was more commonly used to refer to a large rock, instead of a small rock, however they couldn't use tge same word for Peter's title because Peter was a man, and the noun "petras" is feminine.

As I replied to Spartacus above, please do show how gender in Greek would require such a 'bridging', since in your reading you have Jesus referring to him as petra anyway.

[TimelessTheist]

As I replied to Spartacus above, please do show how gender in Greek would require such a 'bridging', since in your reading you have Jesus referring to him as petra anyway.

Eh, no. Peter's title is "petros" the usage pf the word "rock" in the second half od the verse is the one that uses "petras". As for your first question, eh, I'm not sure what you want me to do. What do you mean by "bridging"?