Christ is ascended!
The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.I was more just curious if there is an older copy that is in Aramaic. It doesn't matter though. The language that was spoke at the time was Aramaic, and Christ said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. The meaning is clear in the original language spoken.
Oh? Did you go back in the Way Back Machine and record Him, or is this one of those "private revelations" your ecclesiastical community specializes in to "support" its "teachings"?
The inspired text is the Greek, not matter what the original language spoken. I know you and the Protestants have had a problem with that ever since St. Jerome overturned the boundary marks the Apostles set up, something that St. Augustine criticized him for.
As I am watching EWTN as I write. Scott Hahn and others of his kind are blathering on with an old brother, whom I take as a craddle. Scott is making a point about the differences between "neos" and "kanaios" for "new" in Greek, and making much of Christ saying "kanaios" for "new covenant," (now they are trying to explain Vatican II's results), which makes sense only if the Greek is the authoritative text (as Aramaic doesn't make the same distinction).
The problem is that it seems this Aramaic argument is promoted by those who don't know a thing about Aramaic, e.g.
The word kepha is Aramaic for a rock. Unlike nouns in the Greek language, Aramaic nouns are void of gender.
The Biblical Basis for the Papacy By John Salzahttp://books.google.com/books?id=EvQJ_i7J4CEC&pg=PA47&dq=Aramaic+rock&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Aramaic%20rock&f=false
anyone who knows anything about Aramaic can see this for the foolishness it is.
This "argument" is 100% Scholastic through and through, whether Ultramontanist or Protestant, the same sides of the coin. That you all act as if your argument can't be made from the authentic Greek, whereas the Fathers, both Orthodox and those slipping into Ultramontanism, had no problem for centuries to argue from the text as is. This invention of an Aramaic primacy argument (which, as the majority of Aramaic speakers remained Orthodox shows, doesn't work among the natives) as something definitive is rather novel.
Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope." "La papa" means "the potato." But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.How can you be sure that the Petros/Petra thing is like el papa/la papa and not uno/una?
Because, unlike those who persue this line of arguement, I know Aramaic/Syriac.
If I were to pursue such an argument, I might make more of the fact that the word "Peter" in the Greek is not definite, and "this rock" is. But that isn't necessary. More problematic for your agenda is that the verse is recorded in St. Matthew, the Gospel associated with the Church founded by St. Peter of Antioch, and the Gospel associated with Rome, St. Mark, records the incident but not the renaming of St. Peter.
Again, to reiterate, none of this matters because in the spoken language of Christ and the Apostles it was simply Kepha and Kepha.
So your modern "experts" have conjectured, as scripture does not tell you. Comparison of the LXX, Targums, Peshitta and other Aramaic/Syriac translations doesn't make that rock solid for you, especially as many of the translations are at pains at distinquishing the two, including using the Greek loan "bTrws."
Peter and the rock By Chrys C. Caragounishttp://books.google.com/books?id=YZgNPsOgSjQC&pg=PA26&dq=Aramaic+rock&cd=7#v=onepage&q=Aramaic%20rock&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=YZgNPsOgSjQC&pg=PA44&dq=%22discountenance+the+Greek+as+a+proper+word-play%22&hl=en&ei=I2buTZX1C4LY0QGv34DeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22discountenance%20the%20Greek%20as%20a%20proper%20word-play%22&f=false
Btw, according to Armaic grammar, it would have been keph and kepha. If indeed that is what it was.
Take your a chances. If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.My priest can do that.
Does he claim that, or are you claiming that for him? Or does the Vatican say he has special "faculties"?
There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.And that's their decision.
and a wise one at that.
Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements. Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.We know the teachings of our Church are true.
Like Unam Sanctam? The council of Clermont? Quantum praedecessores? The teachings of Pope John XXII on the beatific vision?
Not to mention the false teaching of the filioque.
Splitting hairs over whether any given teaching is an ex cathedra pronouncement or simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium doesn't seem like that crucial of a thing to know.
Maybe it irritates those on the outside, but they are already irritated with us anyway so I don't see how that matters very much.
Well, when your "magisterium" preaches crusades and inquisitions, and then disown their responsibility by claims that it wasn't really "church teaching," it would tend to irritate people. But since such people are listed by the Vatican as search and destroy targets, it wouldn't matter from your perspective.
And I fully agreement: the distinction between ex cathedra and ordinary magisterium, invented about the same time 18 centuries after the Apostles, is without a difference. Which makes it all the more suspicious why your Vatican insists on making the distinction. but then we have the answer-
yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.What do you mean by that?
Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?There is a difference between obedience and submission. If the Pope says that the sky is green I don't have to believe that, but I would still respect his office as the Successor to St. Peter. I just might think he was having an off day that day.
You might as well respect the Chief R
Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.Protestantism is a different coin altogether.
You are made of the same metal, and stamped with the same scholastic imprint.
St. John Chrysostom, for one. Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times. You got some quotes for me?
Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek. You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
"Talitha qumi!" "Ephphatha!" "Eli, Eli, lama sabakhthani?"
You have been supplied plenty.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451932.html#msg451932
They are not going to go away. One of may favorites:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles. Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?
I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:
Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here. It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa. St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus. In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot. When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him. But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19]. When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.
Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus. Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria. So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church. But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.
So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
We do not have St. Matthew recording Him so saying, so you cannot tell.