The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
RenewedThreads, Singed, Cullen G, Gnostic Fellowship, NinevehNinja92
6,037 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 800 guests, and 300 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,410
Posts416,879
Members6,037
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
J
Joe T Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
I think both Lev and Zax isolated those prooftexts that supported their opposing understanding of "rock" in Matthew 16:18.

Lev defines "rock" as Peter or Peter's person.

Zax defines "rock" as faith and confession or Peter's confession.

Neither represents the totality of Scriptural or Patristic Tradition. In other areas of the Scriptures we learn that "rock" can also mean the Apostles. In the writings of other Fathers we learn that "rock" can also mean a variety of definitions: Christ, Peter, Peter's Confession, and the Apostles. Neither Lev or Zax, who both had so much to prove, successfully gave us the full gamut.

Lev and Zax shows us where polemics leads us: a highly polemic, cafeteria-style dogmatism.

Though much emphasis can be made on the confession of faith of Peter, we cannot divorce that particular confession from Peter. Peter, not James, John, or Paul is singled out.

Is there any similarity between Peter's Confession of Faith and Mary's Willful acceptance to let it be done according to His will? How about Thomas? Can we see the same tendency to go extreme in one way or another as we did with Peter? Like do we put so much emphasis on the 'person' of Mary (i.e., dogmas of her Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption) or her willfull compliance to the divine Will?

Is the concentrated effort on the person-aspect a Western (non-Judeao) thing? In Christology, we left an orthodox subordinationist understanding of the economia of God for an ontology, which in turn led to many Ecumenical Councils to fight it out. In the Papacy, we left the wide understanding of "rock" for a Papal right to supreme and immediate jurisdiction of the Universal Church to which Catholicism and Orthodoxy still squabbles over and which Eastern Catholics are caught in the cross-fire. In Mariology, we left an understanding of her role in 'pointing to Christ' as the Seat of Wisdom, Ark, and Tabernacle of the divine-incarnate for an ontology of Mary's person (the 'how' of Mary and not 'why' of Mary).

Is the ontological trend a natural end? Is this understanding too simplistic?

What would be the result in Ecumenism if the Pope of Rome accepted a First Millenium model of Papacy and his teaching was finally considered "orthodox" according to the Orthodox? Will there be any reason not to become One as our Lord prayed? Or will there be other reasons that keep us 'ontologically' separate?

Just wondering.

Joe Thur

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 31
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 31
Dear Cantor Joseph,

And its' "Thur's Day" today in more ways than one! smile

Alex

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by J Thur:
And who or what appoints the proper authority? How do we know that a proper authority has been appointed? How do we know that an appointed authority is proper? What is the criteria?

Joe
Dear J;

I spent hours yesterday drafting you a reply, and erased it each time. Then upon awaking this morning I saw the way to answer, let me hope I can put what I saw into something understandable.

I was trying to answer with what you were looking for. How to sort through all the conflicting opinions and claims and reads of history which it seems are interpreted in so many ways by people who should know. How hard this is for us. After all, how can we really be sure that Jesus even appointed only 12? Have not we read somewhere that the gospels were written well after with the purpose to re-write the events in order to convince readers??

Bottom line is - that we can be sure of nothing. But our hearts tell us that �something� is there. Our hearts tell us �this is how I want to live� our hearts say we do not want to do what Jesus did but we want to live the way Jesus is telling us.

To that end - we do what we do with any other thing - we give intellectual investigation in order to identify the way, the methods, etc.. that if we apply to ourselves, should change us into what we want. For the purpose, we need to know which church? Which branch? Who do I read? Who do I follow? What self rules do I adopt? At some point we think we have adopted and changed ourselves enough and then - comes disappointment. Some secret sin that we had tried to escape resurges. Some stressful situation comes and to save our self - we cross the line - we blame someone else - we lie just a little bit to keep the pressure off . Or perhaps there is that little item that would give us so much joy or excitement and there it is - free for the taking. Perhaps it is that we find that yet again we have come down hard on someone who did not deserve it just because we are under stress at work.. There are hundreds of little ways we cross the line - and know - it has not worked. It has not worked.

So, we adjust. We amend and re-program. Hopefully we can find that little portion we were missing in our mind set - that will complete the formula - and bring about the behavior changes that we want. And - this is our life. A continual adjusting of mind sets that - almost - work. Our eye is always open to the possibility that the grass may be greener - over there. Our prayer �God - help me - fix this and fix that and do this and do that� seldom seems to get a response - but is not �faith� a thing that means that if you seem to get no response you should keep on believing anyway??

Let me begin with this little tale.

�Sell all you have, take the money and give it to the poor, and come follow me.�

Common theology (what we generally and commonly believe) tells us that the important factor here is to be compassionate to the poor. The good here is self sacrifice (sell your belongings) and aid some poor person who is crushed by life� and by doing that we would be doing what Jesus would like us to do and that would constitute - following him. Psychologically we can see the benefits here. We �break� our self-severing habits - we change our behavior - and we become as loving to the poor as Jesus was. If we did this, did it well, and did it over and over - it would become easier - it would become habit - it would bring about the change we wanted.

The trouble with the above - is - it is poppy cock.

The Good Lord would have no trouble feeding the poor - all the poor - if he wanted to. He could - change every stone into bread - if he wanted to. The real point of this advise - is - Providence.

To sell all you have - is to rid yourself of all you devises by which you secure your future and security. It is to �empty your store house� which you have accumulated against the possibility of famine. Giving the money to the poor may have some social value - but it is not like God needs you to be the go between and he could not get money to the poor without you. The REAL good here is that by doing what is said here - you are throwing yourself, your well being, your future - upon the mystery of - Providence. And by doing THAT - you ARE following Christ because Christ IS the author and the governor of all events which come to you at any time.

This - is a hard thing to believe.

After all - the day I got fired from the job - was it not Joe who instigated that? When those kids broke into my car and stole my lap top - isn�t it the evil of drugs and bad upbringing that did that??

If there existed a - way - and a - guide book - or people who could guide us to the right formula by which we could change our bad habits and actually experience in our life - something of the reality of God being our Father and we being his son - then most assuredly - before Jesus left - he would have written a book and said �Make sure everyone reads this.� But he didn�t. If the �secret way� that creates saints was given to the apostles and to be passed down to all members of the church through doctrine and church laws - then surely Jesus should have done a bit more to assure we could easily find it without all the research and reading and figuring and logic by which we all tend to sort through this stuff looking for what is real and what is false.

Again, the missing ingredient - is a living - today - now - Providence.

Imagine if Jesus said �He would can figure out the puzzle of church archeology - is my brother, my sister, my mother etc�� or the Lord�s prayer be �They truths be figured out� instead of They Will be done.

But the point of the matter (as it had always been with Jesus) is - Thy Will be done. He who does the will of my father is my brother, my sister, etc.. and as Mary said �Let it be done to me according to as you say.�

Our intellect leading the way through the maze of the church - will always - just seem to be - almost working. Because it is not by our intellect that we go the way to God. Why? Because no such path exists.

�Peace to men of good will - for today a savior is born to you� (paraphrased) it is not �Peace to men of good reason and knowledge� or not �Peace to men who have faith despite seemingly little results.�

I had a friend one time, in the evangelical church, whose son developed leukemia. This father refused to take his son to the hospital because he and the church we praying for his healing - and by using doctors he would be doubting God. The �method� was that he should build up his faith, not doubt, and �claim� his miracle� if he could build up his human faith enough �mountains would move�. Well - his soon died soon after. His response would be that it was his own fault because he could not �believe� enough. My response would be - poppy cock.

There is nothing - no way - no path - no �law� within nature of given by God - by which we shall find a way to sainthood (we are just looking to feel secure, and happy, and whole) - there exists no acetic practice that will take us there. There IS a path back to Eden - but we can not find it. And that is the point - WE can not find it because it is impossible for human nature to find it.

You ask �How do we know who is rally appointed and has authority in the hierarchy??� (paraphrased) and I say - does it really matter?? The Pope, nor even the local bishop - neither has ever called me to either ask my advise nor give me personal guidance. They simply do not have any daily impact on my life. I have no need - to answer this question. If there was a need - Providence would somehow give me the answer for my need - but the truth is - it makes no difference to me in my day to day life (except for my efforts to identify the path - which I shall never find).

�Let us form-make man in our image.�
�In the beginning was the Word, and through Him all things were made and without him not one thing has come into being�
�If a man believes in me and loves me I will come make my home with him�
�I shall be with you - forever�
(paraphrased)
We think
If only I could build up my faith to really really believe in these things - I would be safe� and we try and try - and we insist that we do believe - yet deep in the heart we know - we lie. We lie - hoping to make - it real. We lie to ourselves hoping that faith means to believe even if we really do not believe. Faith means believing the un-believable and despite our experiences otherwise. Poppy cock.

The most important theme of the gospels is that which we most often ignore. Jesus himself says in the psalms �You have prepared for me a human body - Lo - I have come to do your will.�

That Will - that living expression of God - that living and interacting movement - is Providence.

The original sin can be argued in several ways and called several things and debated in all scholastic and theological means - but it boils down to one thing - self-providence. At some point the Adam and Eve within us - freely choose to set into motion a chain of events by which we planned to provide for ourselves something of benefit to ourselves. At some point we saw the things and events of creation in a way divorced from a direct authorship and governing hand of God - and we imagined these things and events to have their own laws by which we could manipulate or set into motion some chain reaction to bring to ourselves a desired result. We - pretended and became gods. We took over providing for our selves and automatically we left the �graden� were God had provided all for us� a garden in which we were only to tend (pull up weeds) and not to plant or till etc..

Now - to back off a bit from biblical images.

The only bit of human faith needed � is to believe that somehow - God is alive and in charge of everything. And to believe that the one purpose that God has in his mind - for us - is to make me into his own image (to make me like him in some way). This is as far as human faith may take us to any miracle.

It has impressed me for quite some time, that in the gospels, the one man who continually tried to display a high sacrificial love for Jesus the human - failed miserably most often. And no gospel is more critical of Peter�s failures than Mark�s gospel (Peter�s own gospel). Time and time again, Peter took the position that Jesus assigned him as leader of the 12 (yes, I believe that) to heart - and tried so hard to be their leader and head. He tried so hard to be the go-between between Jesus (who it was expected would soon be king) and the 12 (they expected to all be cabinet like ministers in the new government). More than any other apostle, Peter tried to live up to his assigned position - and failed miserable. In the end, after Jesus was crucified, his last official act (as far as he was concerned) was to resign. The apostles came to him and asked �What shall we do now that he is dead and all our hopes are crushed� and his reply was �I - am going home.� But you cannot resign from what God has given - and so the turning point was the trick question �Peter - do you love me in a divine and sacrificial way� and with all dreams crushed Peter finally answered �No Lord, and I never really did - although I tried - my love for you has always been the small and limited love that one human has for a friend� - and THAT was all that Jesus was looking for! Because that IS the only real love a human is capable of! And Jesus re-assigned him �Feed - all my sheep.� which - like the raising of Lazareth - was not a request but carried with it all graces and ability to have the task done. Nature - be it rock, tree, flower� or human nature.. Can not ignore nor deny a direct command of God. Like Lazareth - it is said (the word spoken) and it is done. A prophet could not do that - only a God could do that.

The one thing Jesus demands of us - is honesty to ourselves. This - IS - humility. It shares the word root with - humanity. To be humble (far from being passive and weak) means to really be - human. To be as limited as humans really are.

So, to answer your question �How do we know?� - the answer is - we do not know until we need to know. When we really need to know - God will provide the guidance and answer. Until such time as we really need to know it is essentially none of our business and a great distraction from our - today - in which Providence has set about us the arrangement of circumstance and situation by which, through our human experience - he is doing his potter work within us.

Most often, Providence, to us, is what we call those few events of which we can not fully understand nor change. If someone dies, we might say �It was God�s will� in ways to comfort ourselves from the unknown. In general - for the things of which we can not figure out fully how they work - we ascribe them to God�s hand and as acts of Providence.

At one time when King David was returning from battle, a man appeared on a hill and began throwing rocks at him, yelling that David be curded! For killing his son (the son died in the battle). David�s body guards came near and asked permission to go up there and kill the man (or at least send him off) and David replied -something to the effect of �God is doing this - who am I to turn away from what God wishes to do to me.� David saw that that act was being governed and done by God and the man on the hill was only doing what God wanted done. And we think (Oh - now here is a rule! If I could practice faith like that!� but this view is wrong.

The only faith God asks of us - is the small faith to believe that he exists and that he can do what he promised. In deed, that is not much at all - except - it flies against all our well worked habits to plan and act and set up our life and the things about our life - in order to provide for ourselves the sure human knowledge that we have been working for what we consider to be our own well being. The only thing God asks of us to begin to place our future (and our past) into his hands which means that we begin to cease providing for ourselves and begin to throw ourselves on the mystery of Him providing situations and events in our daily lives - by which he - can - �let us make man into our image�.

Plenty of books written by saints and doctors of the church describe the events of our daily lives as - the living actions of God. We call them, chance, coincidence, plans worked out or failed - and saints call them - Providence. We call them humdrun, mundane, frustrating - and saint call them daily bread, the action of God, the will of God. Obviously - we want to leave our own view and adopt theirs - but how do we do that?

The answer is - we do not. Providence does it bit by bit. The faith, hope, and charity - God talks about - is something that HE puts into us - it is not anything we build up. �Unless God builds the house - it is worthless� (paraphrased.).

And this means that whatever our real need is - it will be supplied when it is needed. So how do we know a priest is giving to us - God? Because if it is that we really need the guidance - Providence has promised that it will be there - despite the personal holiness of the priest.

So - here is your answer. No path, no method, no rules, no �ways� exists - outside of the action of Providence to use it. And at the time and moment that you and Providence need it - it will be there. God has not placed here a church, as a way, a method, a set of rules, a guide book, and operations manual - that we can intellectually absorb and put into action in order to produce in ourselves either saint hood or to clear the way so sainthood might grow if God were so nice as to give it to us. No. There is a forming - a molding process, a day to day experience within arranged circumstances and situations - of which we wrongly attribute to anything else but God. We - ignore - our daily bread. We do not cooperate but instead we forge ahead insisting upon our own.

God requires our - will - our intentions - not our intellectual abilities. And when we enter into this daily interaction (and we do not need to recognize it of intellectually know why and what it is intended to do) then we have begun to enter into - reality ! For Providence (God governing and arranging all things and events of creation for the one purpose of forming us . The whole man, into something like himself� is the only reality that he brings into being. There is no other purpose or goal of reality.

When this �surrender� is done� slowly - one begins to realize - that there IS form, and purpose, to the events that come to you everyday. No set of rules, no mental training or formation - does any good when what is required is a day to day cooperation with God. The cooperation he asks - is something we begin to know - only when we are in the circumstances he has set up. Like an artist - he applies the strokes as needed� and like sons - we cooperate as needed.

It has often seemed to me that we are like mice in a maze with some scientist overlooking things. We go about looking for a way out of the maze but because of the walls we can not see which path exists the maze like the scientist over looking the project can. The mouse cannot understand human language - so it does not know the mind of the scientist. The scientist can reach down and prod the mouse into the right direction - but the mouse has no concept that this is what the scientist is doing. When the mouse eventual exists the maze through the help of the scientist - the mouse still has no concept that each time the scientist bothered it - he was actually helping. This is a poor similitude but we are the mice - our minds are human and can not grasp much of what God is doing to us - and we really do not need to know exactly what God is doing to us because it will eventual have the results that God desires - even if we have little idea what those results actually will be.

Imagine for a minute an invisible man. There is nothing about him you might see. Now imagine that that invisible man went into a pool of muddy water and came out. NOW - you would be able to see evidence that - here - is a man. There is still - nothing about him that you can see - but you would see the water and earth take the shape of him.

The guarantee is that if you decide to live in a day to day cooperation with Providence - then when a need comes - Providence will see that it is fulfilled - other than that - he allows no way, no path, no methods, no formula - by which we might walk to heaven without him (in his role as Providence).


-ray
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
J
Joe T Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Ray,

Have you been doing a lot of reading from Jean-Pierre de Caussade's "Abandonment to Divine Providence"?

http://www.ccel.org/d/decaussade/abandonment/htm/i.htm

or Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's "Providence and Predestination" in his writing, "REALITY - A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought" or "Providence", EWTN favorites?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/REALITY.htm#11

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/PROVID.HTM

Should the topic of Providence be for another thread?

Joe Thur

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by J Thur:
Have you been doing a lot of reading from Jean-Pierre de Caussade's "Abandonment to Divine Providence"?
Words can not express what God has done for me in Fr. Caussade.

In heaven, I shall find him, drop to my knees and cry tears of thankfulness that God created such a man as Fr. Caussade.


-ray


-ray
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Dear Joe...

I just re-read my own long message and find it very amusing what my automatic spell checker has done here and there.

"David be curded" is supposed to be 'cursed'... and others.

I can only imagine what it would be like to have someone "curded" - probably covered with lumps of curded goat milk... a horrible thing!!

-ray


-ray
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
J
Joe T Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Quote
Originally posted by RayK:
I can only imagine what it would be like to have someone "curded" - probably covered with lumps of curded goat milk... a horrible thing!!

-ray
I like cottage cheese though. Curd away!

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
What was the background to this Scripture verse. Was it not spoken at the region of Caesarea Phillipi. He was a massive rock which Jesus was using as an example.
The revelation to Peter was an infusion of divine knowledge as to whom Jesus was, the Christ the Son of the Living God, for which Peter was Blessed. His name even being changed to Rock.
Here we have to keep in mind it was an Aramaic thought and Kephas denotes a massive bed rock.

While it must be admitted that the rock has been interpreted in a multiplicity of ways it in no way excluded Peter from being that Rock.

It is unaccurate to say that the Rock was not understood as Peter until after 1054 it is simply not true.

Stephanos I

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
As to the Fathers calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is built there are many from both the East and the West.

St. Ephrem known as the "harp of the Holy Spirit , a clergyman of the Church of Edessa at Nisibis in Mesopotamia identified Peter as the Rock.
"Simon my follower. I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I at times called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth the Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. yours is the life giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first born of My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of My treasures. I have given you authority over all my treasures!
(Homilies 4:1)
St Gregory of the East says that Peter is the "called a Rock and is entrusted with the Foundation of the Church." (rations xxxii)

Ambrose the Bsp of Milan said; "It is that same Peter to whom He said; 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Therefore where Peter is, there is the Church; whence the Church is, there death is not, but life eternal.."
Peter is called Rock because, like an immovable rock, he sustains the joints and mass of the entire Christian ediface.
(Sermon 4)
St Asterius Bsp of Amasea in Pontus tells us, "through Peter thereofre the stability of the Church is preserved incapable of fall and unswerving. Peter is called the rock of faith and the foundation and substructure of the Church of God."
Homily 8 on the Feast of St Peter and Paul.

The shining light from the East our Blessed Father among the Saints John Chrysostom says Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I meant the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation..." He goes on to he is the coryphaeus of the apostles, the first of the apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the the whole world.
St Jerome confronts the heretic Jovenius, interstingly enough for the same claims that orthodoxy makes today.
He says; "But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism."
(Against Jovninianus 1:26)
He then talks about how the East is in a state of division and how it tears to shreds the seamless vest of the Lord. He says that for clairity he consults the Chair of Peter "For this, I know, is the Rock on which the Church is built. This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."
(Letter 15)
Agustine then goes on to explain that it was not to Peter alone but to the Church that this ministry was committed and so the charism of the papacy was extended throughout time as the guarantee of unity.

"For these keys not one man, but the unity of the Church received, Hence the excellence of Peter is set forth, because he bore the figure of that very universality and unity of the Church when to him was said, 'To thee' I deliver what was delivered to all."

Bretheren the ministry of the Papacy is an absolute necessity to the unity of the Church.

Stephanos I

Throught the prayers of the Mother of God, O, Savior save our souls.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by J Thur:

Who or what is the "rock?"

Joe
We must stick to the context within which this was happening in the gospels. And we must be mindful that these were Jews steeped in Jewish traditions and habits.

With all due respect to St. John Chrysostom's personal opinion�

To the Jew, the �Rock� was first and foremost the Temple (the church) itself.

The Temple was also the seat of government. No division between church and state existed.

The Holy of Holies was built upon the very mountain and flat rock upon which it was said that Abraham scarified Isaac. Because of the desert winds and lack of trees - any mountain was indeed a �rock� having its surface wind swept of soil. The place were Isaac was sacrificed was the highest point upon the mostly level rock surface.

For the building of the First Temple the sides of the mountain were extended by hundreds of man hours to level the surface and widen it by pack soil and earth enbankments up against the existing rock.

For the building of the Second Temple - Herod had further extended the mountain surface to accommodate his grand building projects. Much of the earth that was used was from the underground excavations which were - extensive.

Naturally the extensive subterrainian tunnels of the Second Temple we tunneled within the orginal and first embankments. Very little tunneling was done within the coroe of rock itself (takes forever to do!).

The Dome Of The Rock is the name of the current Mosque at this place. Notice that the church structure is called �a Dome� while the hill or mounrain upon which this structure is built is called �The Rock�. The Wailing Wall was actually a part of the adjoining fortress and this wall itself was set against the side of the embankment.

So at anytime you hear in the Old and New Testament (and the New Testament takes place within Jewish culture and society) about a �rock� you should expect that in some way - the Temple and it�s government is probably being referred to.

As is most often the case, Our Lord�s words are very inflective. Today we call this a �play on words� but that is because language today, for the most part, has become restrictive and concrete in the meaning of any word. The Hebrew language and Arabic and original Greek were much more expansive. So one must, most often, be aware of all the inflections and uses to any word or phrase.

When Jesus said �Upon THIS rock I will build my ecclesia�� he is making a contrary. Meaning, on the one hand this but on the other hand that. He is making the comparison that the rock (the Jewish Temple) was no longer His father�s house. The most holy items were long missing from it (The Ark, the original sever candle stick, Aaron�s Rod etc..) and most definitely the Spirit of his father. So in saying �upon THIS rock� he is also saying �and not upon THAT rock� meaning the existing Jewish Temple.

We are all aware that Jesus used two words for �rock� which the English only has one word (rock) for. Petra which is a small stone and masculine in gender and Petros which is a large mountainous rock (as the Temple was built upon) and feminine in gender.

What is translated into the English as �and� should be a �but� meaning on the one hand this and on the other hand - that. �You are petra - but - upon this petros I will build my ecclesia.� I have already shown that as to �upon this rock but not upon that rock� meaning upon Peter as chief apostle and not upon the physical Temple which time had past.

The secondary meaning (or the word play - if you will) has to do with Jesus making a comparison of something about Simon - with a - stone. Its solidness and hardness. Obviously this �something� has to do with the personality and character of Simon because it became his nick-name. We name someone with a nick-name as an expression of something in the person�s character or personality. Something about Simon�s personality or character is as hard - as a rock. The use of gender makes it clear to anyone who knows how gender was used at the time - but I shall not explain that. I will go about it another way.

Think to yourself of what was Simon�s personality like throughout all the gospels. You can especially think of Mark because that was Peter�s own gospel as dictated to Mark his secretary. Throughout the gospels Simon (more often than all others) is stubborn, seldom understand the Lord�s meaning. Simon is most often the apostle who decides to take and action and rushes ahead to act - and our Lord has to take the time to correct him. Peter felt very deeply his responsibility as chief apostle and tried to full fill that role by becoming a leader.

It was Peter who said �I will not let you go to Jerusalem� where Jesus would surely be killed. It was Peter who brought the swords that night and it was Peter who cut off the ear of the Temple guard. It was Peter who said �I shall not desert you� and it was Peter who said �I do not know the man.�

The nick-name Jesus gave to Simon was related to a Jewish phrase meaning �hard of heart�. Transliterated, this phrase would be �thick of heart� and in Exodus it is translated into English as �harden his heart� referring to the Pharaoh.

As applied to Simon, because of the use of the masculine gender, the nick-name given to Simon would be comparable in our English culture to �hard-headed�. In as much as petra is a small rock - it would probably be a bit more accurate to have the meaning �You are a bit of a hard-head..�

�You are petra� � meaning in the Hebrew culture �you are a thick-of-head�. Remembering that I already showed that our Lord was making a - contrary - and it should be �You are petra BUT upon this petros I will built my ecclesia.� the use of the petros in feminine gender now indicates Simon�s will. His stubbornness. His firm and solid - will.

One last item before we proceed. Jesus had always identified himself as the - true Temple. So what Jesus will be building when he builds this new temple - will be - himself.

All tolled an accurate paraphrase would be �

�Simon, you are a bit of a bone-head - BUT - upon your rock steady and firm intentions and good will - I shall build my ecclesia - my church - my self.�

Peter has not the personal intelligence nor cleverness of build the church - BUT - upon Peter�s good intentions and rock solid good will - grace will build the church.

You and I would not have chosen Peter - but Jesus did. It was not until after the resurrection that Peter became capable (through grace) to lead the church. A chief in name only before the crucifixion and resurrection but given the full grace after the resurrection (after being humbled) by the words �Feed my sheep� which was not a suggestion on the Lord�s part but these words carried with them the actual grace to do the job.

Hence it has come down to us in the habits of the Eastern church that adopted religious names of the monastic tradition are names of humility which indicate some personal human failing and fault.

I am well aware that my conclusions are not much like the common opinions. I will probably be accused of heresy yet - again. May I say that if the common opinions were close to being right than this subject would be put to bed by now. The very fact that it is still being argued along the same old lines - over and over - indicates that there is something wrong (not fit to the event) with these same old arguments.

-ray


-ray
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Brother Ray,

I found your post interesting since I start my daily prayers with the Liturgy of Hours and Psalm 95, where the word Rock is used for God the Father, it is also used in the same tense in Psalm 94. The Rock of salvation, the Rock of refuge.


james

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
There are multiple interpretations drawn from Mt 16:18+ and 'the rock'. Among them were that Peter was the rock personally, the rock was his faith or the faith of others who had rightly expressed the true faith, etc.

It's not unusual for several valid interpretations to be drawn from *any* scriptural text. But they are not contradictory. In some sense the church is built upon the 'rocks' of us who accurately spread the truth of Christ. And yet it's obvious that I do not have as much juridical authority as my bishop even if I were to spread the gospel as well/accurately as he.

My point is that different interpretations does not nullify the interpretation that Peter is the rock personally. Just as my bishop has more authority than I even if we are both rocks, so does the Pope have more authority than anyone else even if all concerned are rocks.


"Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Eric,

I have some feeling's that the Lord could be speaking of Himself as the Rock, as referenced in Psalm 95, although Peter's faith of his statement could also be the foundation.


james

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Quote
Originally posted by RayK:


<snip>

We are all aware that Jesus used two words for �rock� which the English only has one word (rock) for. Petra which is a small stone and masculine in gender and Petros which is a large mountainous rock (as the Temple was built upon) and feminine in gender.

<snip>

�You are petra� � meaning in the Hebrew culture �you are a thick-of-head�. Remembering that I already showed that our Lord was making a - contrary - and it should be �You are petra BUT upon this petros I will built my ecclesia.� the use of the petros in feminine gender now indicates Simon�s will. His stubbornness. His firm and solid - will.

-ray
Ray,

you apparently crossed the words petros and petra . Petros is masculine and petra is feminine. The Lord did not use two words for rock, since he spoke Aramaic. So he actually called Simon bar Jona, "kepa", Aramaic for rock. Interestingly, although the Pauline epistles are in Greek, Paul refers to Peter as Kephas (cf, 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; and Gal 1:18; 2:9; 11:14). IMHO, Matthew must have thought it improper to apply a feminine gender term to Simon. No doubt this was a pun in the Greek, because in Aramaic both Petros and petra would have been kepa.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
I think what Fr. Dcn John says makes the most sense.


Now, I have a question for everybody. If Christ was referring only to Himself as the rock, why did He decide to change Simon's *name*, and call him Kepha? WHY?

Look through the scriptures, both Old and New--whenever God gives someone a new name, it signifies that that person is receiving a unique and important mission in salvation history. The nature of the person's new mission is reflected in their name--Abraham, Paul, etc. So why would Christ give Simon the name "rock", and state that "upon this rock" He would build His Church, if He only intended to say "*I* am the rock" or "All the Apostles are equally the rock" or "Faith is the rock"?

Christ was quite the capable speaker and knew how to say what He wanted to say. If he wanted to say "the faith of all the Apostles is the rock upon which I will build 15 autocephalous Churches with no central authority" He could have done so. He did not, however. He said that Simon was the "rock" and that "epi taut�n t�n petr�n" He would build His Church.

Is Peter's faith, in some sense, the rock upon which the Church is founded? Yes--insofar as Christ would not have named him "Rock" without his divinely-inspired confession of Faith. Thus, Peter's faith may be called the "rock", by extension--because Peter could not have been named "Rock" without his Faith. Nevertheless, the arguments that deny that Peter is the rock are grammatically and logically torturous, as well as opposed to the plain words of Scripture.


LatinTrad

Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5