Catholic Problems

[Paprika]

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"?

My point is that since under your reading Jesus does refer to Peter as petra, why is there a need for what Spartacus called the "bridging" of the genders?

Edit: I'm still waiting for your defense of the overall case.

[TimelessTheist]

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."

That's...kind of the point, actually, the fact that he wasn't mentioned among the other heretics that went "contrary to the orthodox faith". If he truly was heretical, he would've been mentioned along with them.

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

Yes. However, the defense was in response to Sergius' non-sequitur about Christ having one human will instead of two human wills. Said defense was not in response to the heresy in question. Were you even paying attention?

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.

I don't see how a simple phrase like that undermines his argument. He did, certainly, in all respects, follow Sergius' view of silence on the Church's part. If it said "views", as in, multiple views, then I'd be in trouble.

As for your last point...well, I'll give you that one, the article was indeed, wrong on the point that the council was pertaining to Monothlitism.

[TimelessTheist]

My point is that since under your reading Jesus does refer to Peter as petra, why is there a need for what Spartacus called the "bridging" of the genders?

Edit: I'm still waiting for your defense of the overall case.

Well, I'm not sure what Spartacus meant by that, anyway. However, seeing as how the two words are synonymous, as said by Greek scholars, there's really no case to be made. In fact, the two words would've been the exact same word in Aramaic.

As for your concern....eh, no. "Petros" was a title for Peter, so it had to be masculine, the second usage is just a common usage of the word "rock".

[RBerman]

Why not every bishop as an earthly representative of Christ, as the East teaches?

Better yet, why not every believer as an earthly representative of Christ, as the Bible teaches? We are a nation of kings and priests! That is not to deny the existence of leaders within Christ's Church, but it does locate actual power within the whole church, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 18, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.

The East teaches that using one's imagination is precisely the wrong thing to do when meditating on God, since it is quite susceptible to demonic influence.

Good insight.

[RBerman]

Revelation 5:8 shows the saints handing the "prayers of the people" to God. 'nuff said.

Are you interpreting that to mean that the prayers had been offered to the deceased saints, which the 24 elders then deliver to God? That verse is not nearly as specific as that. "The prayers of the saints" seems more likely to refer to the prayers offered by living saints, not prayers directed to dead saints.

[RBerman]

Not if they were sacrificing a bull to Baal. And not if they considered Baal to be a god of some kind. Catholics do not worship Mary, they do not consider her to be a god, and they do not sacrifice bulls to her.

But they do call her Queen of Heaven, and one might be forgiven for supposing that this implies some degree of parity with the King, as opposed to being one on the King's subjects.

[RBerman]

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?

Anyone familiar with gendered nouns knows that they have little to do with biological sex. Navis, the Latin word for boat, is also feminine, but no ancient speaker would be even slightly confused if a male were compared to a boat.

[robrecht]

But they do call her Queen of Heaven, and one might be forgiven for supposing that this implies some degree of parity with the King, as opposed to being one on the King's subjects.

Do you reject the even more exalted title, Mother of God?

[robrecht]

Anyone familiar with gendered nouns knows that they have little to do with biological sex. Navis, the Latin word for boat, is also feminine, but no ancient speaker would be even slightly confused if a male were compared to a boat.

They certainly do when they refer to a 'gendered' person.

[RBerman]

Do you reject the even more exalted title, Mother of God?

I do not reject it, but I do qualify it to clarify that it simply affirms that Jesus was always God rather than becoming God subsequently, perhaps at his baptism. It does not mean that Mary is the Mother of the Father or the Spirit. I find it more helpful to avoid a title with such potential for ambiguity, and to simply affirm The Son's eternal deity directly.

[RBerman]

They certainly do when they refer to a 'gendered' person.

All persons are gendered, but that is irrelevant when comparing them to non-persons. For instance, in his poem #5, the Roman poet Catullus famously referred to his female lover as passer, "sparrow," a masculine word.

[robrecht]

I do not reject it, but I do qualify it to clarify that it simply affirms that Jesus was always God rather than becoming God subsequently, perhaps at his baptism. It does not mean that Mary is the Mother of the Father or the Spirit. I find it more helpful to avoid a title with such potential for ambiguity, and to simply affirm The Son's eternal deity directly.

But if Mother of God must be qualified doesn't that mean it too is ambiguous?

[RBerman]

But if Mother of God must be qualified doesn't that mean it too is ambiguous?

It is ambiguous. As I said, I do not deny what it intends to affirm, but I do not find it the most helpful formulation to express that truth.

[robrecht]

It is ambiguous. As I said, I do not deny what it intends to affirm, but I do not find it the most helpful formulation to express that truth.

[robrecht]

All persons are gendered, but that is irrelevant when comparing them to non-persons. For instance, in his poem #5, the Roman poet Catullus famously referred to his female lover as passer, "sparrow," a masculine word.

Of course. But metaphors and similes are different from names and nicknames that do take the gender of the person referred to. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but those do not function as names for him.