ARE YOU READY TO MAKE DEVOTION TO INA PENAFRANCIA?
click the lets go button and pray the novena today
This is what is said in Matthew 16:18.
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”(Matthew 16:18, NRSV) Why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a customary word for “rock” in Greek. St. Matthew was translating, he could have used petra for “rock.” Yet, there would have been a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been inappropriate to address Peter Petra. It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male. in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name. Think About This! My name is Bernard which can also be translated as Bernardo. I am male so you will not call me Bernarda since it is feminine. The author cannot use Petra incorrectly since this can cause embarrassment to the person. Yet, it is beside the point. The actual conversation is in Aramaic. Simon became kephas in Aramaic. In St. John 1:42, the Aramaic translation of Simon’s new name, Kephas means “rock.” Let us say that Anti-Catholics are correct and Peter was only a “little stone” (petros). In that case, the Aramaic word should have been “evna” and not “kephas.” “Kephas” (John 1:42 and Matthew 16:18) comes from the Aramaic word כיפה “kefa” (Classic Galilean spelling is כיפא or in Syriac ܟܐܦܐ). The word for Peter, kefa’, is the same word for rock. If the words are compared, Peter is the rock. In said verse, the same word is used for his name ܟܐܦܐ “Kefa” and what our Lord said he would build His Church upon ܟܐܦܐ . In Galilean Aramaic of Matthew 16:18, the only likely possibility is a play on words between כיפה “kefah” or “rock” and the verb בני “bne” which means “to build” and puns with אבן “eben”. I would reconstruct this passage as: את כיפה ועל הדן אבנה אבני כנישתה “at kefah, w‘al hadən əvnah əvney kništah” You are Kefa, and upon this rock, I will build my church. You can see the progression: Kefah (rock) to əvnah (rock/build) to əvney (I will build). This is what is written in Greek text of Matthew 16:18. “κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ἅ|δου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς. “(Matthew 16:18, Greek New Testament) Let us analyze this deeply καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃͅ τῇ πέτρᾳ. The καί is a connective conjunction. It must be translated as “and.” If used with the dative, ἐπί it can be taken in a spatial, temporal, or causal sense. A spatial understanding is more appropriate and the word may be defined as “on, upon”. The object of ἐπί should be described as πέτρα. The ταύτη (“this”) refers to πέτρα. The use of the article τῇ with the demonstrative pronoun ταύτη, which is in the predicate form, shows attributive function. So, the phrase may be translated as such: “and upon this rock.” The word πέτρα means “rock, stone”; plainly and refers to the rock out of which a tomb is constructed. in the LXX, πέτρα can be used to signify the following: a. “rock or cliff” (Exod 17:6; Ps 80:16); b. place-name or geographical note, The word is mentioned 15 times in the New Testament ; nine of those are in the Gospels while five of the fifteen can be read in Matthew. Only in Matt 16:18 are πέτρα and Πέτρος used in the same verse. The greek word Petros was not an exact synonym of petra since it was translated literally as “a stone.” Jesus in a play on words switched petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it signified for the church. There is no logical reason to think that Jesus changed from petros to petra to show that he did not refer to Peter but of his acknowledgment as the foundation of the church. The words “on this rock [petra]” refer to Peter due to the revelation he received and the confession (for which he would use ekeinος) that it motivated in him. Peter was appointed by Jesus to establish the foundation of the future church. The word πέτρα is feminine in the Greek and has a feminine ending (-α). The New Testament opted for a Greek word with masculine ending (-ος) for the apostle: Πέτρος.There is no basic difference between πέτρα and Πέτρος, even though πέτρα meant “live rock” and Πέτρος, a “detached stone.” The distinction was not observed precisely. The reason of Jose Ventilacion is if we say Peter is the Rock, there are two rocks since only Christ is the rock according to 1 Corinthians 3:11? It is true that there are several cases of God the Father being referred to as “rock” (Deuteronomy 32: 4 15, 1 Samuel 2:2, Psalms 18:31 Isaiah 30:29) and Jesus being described as “rock” or “foundation” in the NT (1 Corinthians 3:11, 10:4). Nonetheless, that does not essentially mean that Jesus calls himself (or the Father) as the “rock” of Matthew 16:18. Matthew 16 talks about the theme of Jesus’ identity, but verses. 17-19 focuses mainly on Peter and his statements about the identity of. It will appear that the πέτρα of v. 18 either refers to the man. Likewise, in v. 17, Jesus refers to the apostle as “Simon”. In v. 18, Jesus expressly refers to Simon as Peter which is the nickname he gave this apostle. If Peter is not being referred to, why would Jesus intentionally use a word that almost copied the apostle’s name? if this is the only place in the New Testament wherein πέτρα and Πέτρος are used in the same verse, it is hard to think that Jesus was not somehow referring to Peter.
0 Comments
Why can’t women be Catholic Priests?
Should women have important positions in companies and governments? Absolutely! God has given women many important roles in history. Some men are better at home than women; why shouldn’t they stay home? Probably they should. The Church has no objection. In their closing message of the Second Vatican Council, the council fathers expressed an urgent plea for women to accept God’s call: The hour is coming, in fact, has come, when the vocation of woman is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in which women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power never hitherto achieved. That is why, at this moment when the human race is undergoing so deep a transformation, women impregnated with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not falling. (Vatican II, Closing Speech, December 8, 1965 ) The Church declared Mary the most important human being of all time. The Mother of God is a woman. The Catholic Church has put more attention on Mary than any other denomination. Pope Francis has called for a “deeper theoplogy” for women. “Nobody can be a better priest than Our Lady, and she remained only the handmaiden of the Lord.” Mother Teresa to an Indian journalist, 1984 The Church has no authority to ordain women When it comes to the ordination of women the Church has to approach this question the same way it approaches every other important decision; with prayer, the Bible, the Tradition of the Church and the wisdom of theologians. The Church wants to know what God has to say about this, and She (the theological pronoun for the Church) believes God has an opinion on this. Pope John Paul II has said: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” Some may say the Pope was old, chauvinistic and conservative. Although he was old, it would be a difficult to say he was chauvinistic given that he has canonized more women than all the other Popes in history combined. He named St. Thérèse of Lisieux a Doctor of the Church (only the third in history), and declared Sister Faustina a Saint, with a special feast day to celebrate the Divine Mercy. Many traditionalist Catholics wanted to throw the Pope out because he was “too liberal”. This is a good argument against the charge that he leaned too far right. He also consistently stood up for women’s rights in every instance where they did not interfere with the primary right to life. His position on this issue was not about discriminating against women, but rather it is about following God’s wish for the Church. Other denominations have discerned differently in order to stay “relevant” to our culture. They honestly thought that ordaining women would bring modern women back to Church. They are now on the brink of extinction (United, Anglican, Methodist, etc.). There are those who argue that the Pope did not declare this from the Chair of Peter and therefore the statement was not “infallibly” made. It is clear that the Pope intended it as a teaching statement on morals, and he made it binding on the whole Church. The Magisterium also stood behind him and there is 2000 years of unity among the Bishops on this. This has all the qualities of an “infallible” statement. At the very least, it is highly unlikely that this will change in the next century. There are many theological reasons why the Church believes God has chosen a male priesthood. Those who argue that it isn’t tend to be the same crowd who would like to see same sex marriage and contraception accepted also. One of the main reasons the Church has this position that Jesus himself chose 12 male apostles. There were many women available that He could have chosen, but He only chose 12 males. There were several strong candidates, including his own mother who is recognized as the holiest of all human beings. Was Jesus only following the conventions of the time? Some have said that the conventions of the time dictated that only men should have positions of power and therefore Jesus followed the conventions of the time (John 5:1-18). That statement is problematic because Jesus was very quick to break social conventions. For instance, He healed a woman on the Sabbath. He spoke with the Samaritan woman (John 4:4-42; 8:3-11), which was forbidden to Jews. He dined with tax collectors, He welcomed a Mary Magdalene, from whom He cast out 7 demons, as one of his best followers and revealed his risen body to her first, He freed the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, He said the Roman soldier (a gentile) was more faithful than anyone among the people of Judea, and so on. So Jesus was clearly not afraid to break the conventions of his time. In fact, He was crucified because of that. Another thing to consider is that there were women performing similar roles to a priest in other religions, at the time of Jesus so it would be inaccurate to say there was no historical precedence. Fr. Mateo writes: … the lands around the Mediterranean teemed with religions with priestesses. The famed Vestal Virgins of Rome were priestesses. There was a priestess functioning at Delphi. The Sybil was a priestess and the many temple prostitutes were priestesses. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, the priest represents Christ The overarching theme in Scripture is the Bride and Bridegroom. The Bible opens with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and closes with the marriage of Christ and his Church (Rev. 21:9-10). Ephesians 5:22-33 compares the union of husband and wife to that of Christ and the church (see also John 3:29). We find this matrimonial language in the Old Testament also, where the people of Israel are the bride and God is the groom (e.g., Isaiah 54:5, 62:5, Jer 3:14). Many of the early Christians and Saints confirmed this relationship including Ambrose of Milan, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179),Teresa of Avila (1515–1582), Gertrude the Great, John of the Cross, etc… In these analogies Jesus is always the groom, male, and the Church is always the bride, female. The priest represents Christ “In persona Christi” when administering the Sacraments, and as such is the groom, which is male In persona Christi – a Latin phrase meaning “in the person of Christ” – is an important theological concept which refers to the action of a bishop or priest while celebrating a sacrament. The priest acts in the person of Christ in the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite. There are essential moments in the rites where the priest’s words and gestures confect the sacrament. These words are spoken in persona Christi capitis. Two examples include, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” during the transubstantiation of the Eucharist. This is also true during reconciliation when the priest says, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” It is interesting that most advocates of a woman priesthood don’t believe in transubstantiation, or in absolution, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a priesthood. Early Church Fathers speak against women’s ordination St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: “If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary… . She was not even entrusted with baptizing… Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex… In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white. “Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference, ‘For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female’.” [Gal. 3:28] St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.” Weren’t there women priests in the early Church? Some authors, such as Mary Ann Rossi and Professor Giorgio Otranto have pointed to Pope St. Gelasius (circa 494 AD) who wrote a letter of discipline to an area that was allowing women to serve at the altar. Ms. Rossi claims this proves precedence of female priests. This is not much different from situations today where the Magisterium has had to step in when people try to take liberties with the Eucharist. Nor is it different from when Saint Paul stepped in to correct mistakes in the administration of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23-29). This in no way indicates that the Church accepted women priests. This was never accepted by the Church and even the most militant advocates of female priesthood have not found one magisterial document supporting their position. In his Epistle 14: 26, March 11, 494 AD, Pope Gelasius addresses a very specific area, Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicilia, which clearly demonstrates the limited nature of this abuse. The Pope cites earlier magisterial declarations against women at the altar. There was never an accepted order of female priests. This is a myth put forth by those who would like to undermine the Magisterium, and who would like to bring about what they call the French Revolution to Catholicism where the common people take the authority from the Magisterium, much like the Reformation of the 1500s, the fruit of which is 33,500 different denominations. The Magisterium is necessary for unity, and Jesus knew that when He gave it full magisterial authority (Mat 16:18). Was there ever a woman Pope? This is a myth that was in circulation from the 13th to 17th centuries. It claimed that Pope Joan reigned from 850-870 AD. French Protestant Hugh Blondel (1590-1655) disproved the myth with a scholarly refutation. The legend goes that a woman named Joan impersonated a man so that she could enter the clerical life and rise through the ecclesiastical rank. She eventually became a Pope until one day, while riding a horse, she gave birth to a child and was exposed as a fake, only to be stoned to death by an angry mob. Not even those who were against the papacy in the years around 1000 A.D. make any mention of this. The legend didn’t show up until 300 years after the incident allegedly occurred. It is the equivalent of today’s “urban legends.” No serious secular male or female historian accepts this legend. |
Catholic Life HacksWe use different means to evangelize and live our Faith interactively. This blog is also an Apologetic blog Archives
October 2016
Categories |