Pope backs civil unions

[ramcam2]

I agree, but it cannot be ruled out that this was just because Rome was also the seat of political authority. In any case, what "rights" the Roman church later assumed over other churches were usurped by Leo I, or else "conferred" on it by the early Byzantine church after the power of the Roman pontificate was resurrected by Byzantium in 6th century AD.

Originally Rome was only "primus inter pares" but later on, especially in the context of Chalcedon and the Second Council of Ephesus controversies (5th century), it purported to usurp authority over others and de-recognize others.

In fact the doctrine of "Petrine supremacy" owes far more to the actions of Leo I and Byzantium (i.e. Constantinople) than to Peter, who really serves as little more than a propaganda source.

"The significance of Leo's pontificate lies in his assertion of the universal jurisdiction of the Roman bishop, as expressed in his letters, and still more in his 96 extant orations. This assertion is commonly referred to as the doctrine of Petrine supremacy. "
Wiki.

have you read what the early christians wrote? they understood that peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the church and exercised authority over it. here are few examples...
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1 [A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
[the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
… the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Origen
And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Constantine Augustus
And that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care (To Chrestus [A.D. 314] as recorded by Eusebius).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ephraim
Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its tall buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a 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 (Homilies 4:1 [inter A.D. 338-373]).

 

[organgrinder]

try to read and study also what the early christians were writing.

I do. It is found in the Bible, specifically the New Testament. Those were the earliest. And it is understandable.

 

[organgrinder]

st matthew cannot allow feminine nouns for males, it will be improper for him to call simon, petra. this is why he used petros instead of petra.

And yet while Simon was called "Petros" (the masculine noun), the feminine "Petra" was then used referring to whom? It wasn't Peter by your logic. It was Jesus showing the distinction between a small stone (Petros) and a massive Rick (Petra) which was Jesus. The grammar doesn't support your contention.

 

[shnarkle]

st matthew cannot allow feminine nouns for males, it will be improper for him to call simon, petra. this is why he used petros instead of petra.

Nice try, but not even close. As has already been pointed out, the distinction between a boulder and a stone didn't exist in the Koine Greek of the gospels, therefore, the author would have had no problem writing "tautw tw petrw" (the Masculine form!) which is "on this rock...", and would have necessarily referred to "Petros". The author didn't do that though so your theory doesn't work.

He used the feminine form which can't refer to a masculine noun or name.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I read and study every day as I have for the past 48 years. I am a former Roman Catholic whose eyes were opened to biblical truth. The papacy isn't one of those biblical truths.

If I gave my students a test over the textbook and notes from the keynote speaker, a student shouldn't complain about a low score if he/she only studied the textbook.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Yeah..... that theology degree is highly important, just like it was for the Pharisees and Sadducees. Learned men who couldn't come to know the truth. Yet ignorant and unlearned men such as the apostles put them in their place under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, that degree is important.

Maybe those protestant scholars should get together and have 'one faith' as well.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I do. It is found in the Bible, specifically the New Testament. Those were the earliest. And it is understandable.

Then why aren't you Catholic?

 

[organgrinder]

Maybe those protestant scholars should get together and have 'one faith' as well.

Sounds like whining to me.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Sounds like whining to me.

So straighten them out organgrinder! Get those protestant scholars on the same page regarding 'essential doctrines'.

 

[ramcam2]

I do. It is found in the Bible, specifically the New Testament. Those were the earliest. And it is understandable.

it is understandable that you imply your interpretation of the new testament, 2000 years later, is correct than those who lived the first 500 years of christianity.

 

[ramcam2]

Nice try, but not even close. As has already been pointed out, the distinction between a boulder and a stone didn't exist in the Koine Greek of the gospels, therefore, the author would have had no problem writing "tautw tw petrw" (the Masculine form!) which is "on this rock...", and would have necessarily referred to "Petros". The author didn't do that though so your theory doesn't work.

He used the feminine form which can't refer to a masculine noun or name.

In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.
Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek

 

[ramcam2]

And yet while Simon was called "Petros" (the masculine noun), the feminine "Petra" was then used referring to whom? It wasn't Peter by your logic. It was Jesus showing the distinction between a small stone (Petros) and a massive Rick (Petra) which was Jesus. The grammar doesn't support your contention.

Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.

 

[organgrinder]

Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.

And yet there was when Jesus called Simon "petros" and used petra for Himself. That aligns with the rest of scripture in how "rock" was used.

 

[organgrinder]

it is understandable that you imply your interpretation of the new testament, 2000 years later, is correct than those who lived the first 500 years of christianity.

I refer to the original writers. I don't need another layer. You, as a member of the RC church, need lots of layers--Mary and people no longer living on this planet to help you out with other matters.

 

[shnarkle]

In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

Why do you think I am making this claim??? I never claimed the stone/boulder nonsense in the first place. You're confused.

Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament.

Agreed.

Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all.

Now you're starting to make someone else's point. Regardless, it isn't unheard of either.

In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.

The trinity is never referred to at all.

Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek

Why are you repeating what I just posted???

 

[organgrinder]

shnarkle wrote: Why do you think I am making this claim??? I never claimed the stone/boulder nonsense in the first place. You're confused.

You are referring to me, evidently. I based my response on both the Strong's concordance and numbers and the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. You might consider it nonsense. I don't. we obviously have a disagreement of opinion. So be it.

ROCK
1. petra (πέτρα)
petra
, NT:4073) denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, "because it had been well builded"); Rev 6:15,16 (cf. Isa 2:19,ff.; Hos 10:8); Luke 8:6,13, used illustratively; 1 Cor 10:4 (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in Rom 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him; here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the apostle, is clear (see above).
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

 

[shnarkle]

You are referring to me, evidently. I based my response on both the Strong's concordance and numbers and the Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. You might consider it nonsense. I don't. we obviously have a disagreement of opinion. So be it.

ROCK
1. petra (πέτρα)
petra
, NT:4073) denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder,"

You just provided a claim that refutes yours. Strong's is notorious for being inaccurate as well.

or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra,

Fallacy of moving the goalposts. No one is denying the meaning of petra. The issue is why it can't be referring to Petros. Petros is the word under scrutiny, not petra.

see Matt 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice), a type of a sure foundation (here the true reading is as in the RV, "because it had been well builded"); Rev 6:15,16 (cf. Isa 2:19,ff.; Hos 10:8); Luke 8:6,13, used illustratively; 1 Cor 10:4 (twice), figuratively, of Christ; in Rom 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8, metaphorically, of Christ; in Matt 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning Him;

This is all concerning petra which no one is denying in the first place.

here the distinction between petra, concerning the Lord Himself, and Petros, the apostle, is clear (see above).

LOL. This is ridiculous. There is nothing above that even refers to petros. NOTHING.

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

Nothing in Vines supports your assertion. You need to find a good lexicon which gives examples, usage, etc. What you'll find is that the stone/boulder distinction exists only in Attic Greek.

The only argument that works is with regards to gender. A feminine noun cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. Moreover, given the FACT that this stone/boulder distinction didn't exist in the Koine Greek of the bible, there is NOTHING preventing the author from writing "tautw tw petrw" (MASCULINE) which would have proved conclusively that he was referring to Petros. He didn't do that though, did he???

Again, GREEK Grammar precludes the possibility that petra could ever refer to petros.

 

[organgrinder]

You just provided a claim that refutes yours. Strong's is notorious for being inaccurate as well.

Fallacy of moving the goalposts. No one is denying the meaning of petra. The issue is why it can't be referring to Petros. Petros is the word under scrutiny, not petra.

This is all concerning petra which no one is denying in the first place.

LOL. This is ridiculous. There is nothing above that even refers to petros. NOTHING.

Nothing in Vines supports your assertion. You need to find a good lexicon which gives examples, usage, etc. What you'll find is that the stone/boulder distinction exists only in Attic Greek.

The only argument that works is with regards to gender. A feminine noun cannot refer to a masculine noun or name. Moreover, given the FACT that this stone/boulder distinction didn't exist in the Koine Greek of the bible, there is NOTHING preventing the author from writing "tautw tw petrw" (MASCULINE) which would have proved conclusively that he was referring to Petros. He didn't do that though, did he???

Again, GREEK Grammar precludes the possibility that petra could ever refer to petros.

I understand Petros referred to Peter and Petra to Jesus.

 

[shnarkle]

I understand Petros referred to Peter and Petra to Jesus.

I know. I'm pointing out that the stone/boulder argument isn't applicable because all of the examples are from Attic Greek rather than the Koine Greek of the bible. It actually strengthens your argument because there is nothing preventing the author from writing the masculine "petrw" instead of the feminine "petra".

It's ironic because the Catholics love to point that the stone/boulder distinction doesn't exist in the Koine Greek of the gospels, and yet it immediately refutes their position because a feminine noun or name cannot refer to a masculine noun or name.

 

[ramcam2]

I refer to the original writers. I don't need another layer. You, as a member of the RC church, need lots of layers--Mary and people no longer living on this planet to help you out with other matters.

you refer to the original writers but in reality your interpretation of the original writers and that is what the ecf refers to also, the interpretation as taught by the original writers.