Naming the Pope

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What are the conventions for changing a person's name to their "Pope" name? ie why does the man from Poland become Pope John Paul II? Why that and not something else? His name is really the equivalent in Italian right?

-- David Michael Shelton (quillman@fcmail.com), June 08, 1999

Answers

The person who is elected is asked what name they wish to be called by. John Paul I chose the two names of the popes before him, John XXIII and Paul VI. hence John Paul I & II. By the way we have no evidence anywhere that anyone was every called "Peter" before Christ changed his name when he chose him to be the first pope and no pope has ever used the name Peter since.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 08, 1999.

I've read in several sources that "Cephas" was actually a fairly common name in Aramaic.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 09, 1999.

David,

I am very interested in this topic. I would love to read your sources. Can you provide them please?

Thanks in advance.

PS

Scripture scholar and former Protestant minister Dr. Scott Hahn asserts that Rock was unheard of as a name at the time Christ gave it to Simon.

-- ubi (ubi@petros.com), June 09, 1999.


Was pulling from memory ubi. If I can recall where I read it, I'll certainly pass it on. I do read alot, so I can't make any promises. Sounds like a cop-out I know. But it's the truth. I seem to recall that I read it most recently in the New International Bible Commentary, Volume II. It was specifically in regard to the Aramaic version of the name Cephas. I'll check to see if it provides any cross-references for the note.

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), June 09, 1999.

Cephas derived from the Aramaic, Kepha (pronounced kee-fay), the name give to Simon (son of) Jonah, by Jesus. It is believed Paul changed the name to the Greek equivalent, Cephas, or so my research has answered. Check out www.abideinchrist.com and look to the subject "One More Chance, Peter". (Oddly enough, my mother appears to have named me well...or so I find from the insight I read there.) There is confusion over the meaning of the famous quote, "Peter you are stone and upon this rock..." I think Jesus was lightly mocking Peter. Guess he couldn't believe he was leaving the building of his church on earth to someone as dense as a rock.

-- peter staniunas (pjs959@hotmail.com), March 19, 2002.


What an asinine post!

You seemed to be serious. Go back to your free-lance Christians site.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 19, 2002.


"Peter you are stone and upon this rock" Another Protestant error. It should say Peter you are ROCK (of Strong FAITH) and upon this ROCK (YOUR FAITH) You will built my church. The word Kephas is used in both places by Christ meanig ROCK- There is no word in the ARAMAIC for stone whatsoever. It is ROCK--ROCK. THE SAME ITEM. FAITH.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 19, 2002.

"Peter you are stone and upon this rock" Another Protestant error. It should say Peter you are ROCK (of Strong FAITH) and upon this ROCK (YOUR FAITH) You will built my church. The word Kephas (Cephas)is used in both places by Christ meanig ROCK- There is no word in the ARAMAIC for stone whatsoever. It is ROCK--ROCK. THE SAME ITEM. FAITH. In the Greek it was translated by error. It was written as Petra and Petros, Small stone --- large stone. The Aramaic is correct and the Greek is wrong. Remember Christ did not speak in the Greek. He spoke in the native tongue of the Jews of the day which was Aramaic. In the English, Peter, is also a name for ROCK.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 19, 2002.

I was in a discussion with a non-Catholic Christian over this same topic. After I brought up the fact that in Aramaic there was no distinction, he said that God inspired the writer to distinguish between the two. So he believed the quote was Peter, you are little rock (Peter), and upon this large rock (faith in Jesus) I will build my church.

My answer was God inspired the writer to realize that Peter was no simple man, but a large and important man (as He was to build his Church on him). So I read it:

Peter, you are a man of faith, and upon this GREAT man of faith (Peter), I will build my church.

Just my thoughts, Glenn

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), March 19, 2002.


Glenn

My words --exactly...Thanks. GOD Bless YOU

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 19, 2002.



Glenn:
There is a certain nuance that Fred and you overlook. You said:

''So he believed the quote was Peter, you are little rock (Peter), and upon this large rock (faith in Jesus) I will build my church.''

But we must never concede this as true. It's really a false premise. Just to show you how important this short passage is to support of the Papacy, consider now;

Jesus is NOT saying I will build my Church on faith. Anybody's faith, not on Peter's or any other man's faith. Faith is a VIRTUE.

Peter is a MAN; and Jesus promised His Church would stand on a MAN, Peter. That's the only real reason that Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. Jesus very easily could have said, ''Simon; on your faith I will build my Church'' --But no-- He said ''Thou art Peter (ROCK) and upon this ROCK (PETER) I will build my Church.''

This means the man Peter is what supports the Church of Christ on earth, No other thing, no other person. Christ CHOSE one man, and He built His Church on him. --He had good reason: a man will lead the Church (with rock-stability) and after he is gone, his successor is acting as the same MAN, Peter. Peter continues on in Christ's Holy Church, in his successors, the Popes! Faith is universal in the Church. It has no center. In order for the ''reformers'' to de-legitimize the Papacy, they had to overcome the first basis for a Papacy, which is the chair of Peter.

By saying, No-- Christ didn't mean He would build His Church on Peter (Whose name is Rock) but on the confession of faith; they negate the Popes.

This is an important nuance for protestants. Which is the reason they argue incessantly that Petros, Cephas, Kephas etc., do not mean rock-- This makes the passage in Matthew purely and simply Christ appointing the FIRST POPE!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 19, 2002.


Gene,

Actually, I don't believe I missed the nuance that you so aptly spelled out. I realized his point was that Peter was not appointed head of the Church. That is why I pointed out my understanding of why God inspired the writer to use two different words in Greek. Jesus built His Church on a great man, not simply a man.

Sorry I was not clear in my first post.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), March 19, 2002.


Glenn,
Your previous post was fine, but after Fred misconstrued your meaning I thought I would say something.

Protestants have only one motive for disputing Matthew 16:18 --which is not a very ambiguous passage. This motive is simply self-serving. To deny Peter was appointed the Rock upon which Jesus built the Church gives them a pretext by which they try to undermine the Popes. In this way, protestants can't be accused of breaking from the Church of the apostles.

I often reflect on the appalling intellectual dishonesty they show us, by lowering the very words of Christ to their own agenda. If this sounds counter-ecumenical, I say, ''Yes, I'm guilty.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 20, 2002.


Gene

I did not misconstue it at all I was simply relating to the earror in the Greek translations. Is it not true that Peter Knew Christ was the messiah and the one sent from GOD the Father. I was referring to Peter's great faith and his wisdom coming from GOD and that he was appointed by Christ because of his total reliance on the Spirit for his judgement and Christ told him he will be the Leader of his Church. Now where did I miss that - I am sorry that I cannot make things clear enough for you. I have and will honor Christ's selection of Peter on the strength of his leadership role and his obedience to GOD. We have the great Fortune today to have seen many Great Popes lead this Holy Church and Next to Pope Gregory I believe John Paul II has to be the greatest successor of Peter in the Great History of our Blessed Church. I know I cannot say things in your tongue- but I know where my heart is. THE LOVE OF GOD IS MY GUIDE.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 20, 2002.


Fred: You didn't make this clear?

--- --- ---

''and upon this ROCK (YOUR FAITH)'' ''ROCK--ROCK. THE SAME ITEM. FAITH / ''

You may not realise it, but your statements fall right in line with the protestant interpretation. They maintain faith is the Rock, and not Peter. So, that is what I attempted to clarify.

All I've done is copied/pasted your very words. It is Peter the MAN-- Not Peter's faith, upon which Christ founded the Catholic Church. Indirectly you could argue He meant because of this great faith. But you only boost the protestant objection to the Papacy. Is that OK by you? That's why I've been warning you (With a brother's love--) to get all your ducks in a row first-- THEN speak. Yu are just too anxious, I'm afraid. I hate to be critical, because I know you're a good Catholic. For this I respect you. But learn to debate from strength, not just banging away.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 20, 2002.



Hi, Fred.
I noticed that you twice stated that the Greek text that we have of St. Matthew's gospel has an error in it -- distinguishing between petra and petros.
If you could look into this by reading what Catholic apologists trained in Greek have to say, you would find that they do not claim that an error exists.

I believe that I have heard/read several of these men and women stating the following:
1. St. Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic (or Hebrew).
2. His text read (if I may be allowed to mix English and Aramaic), "... You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church." [There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that this is what Jesus said, because, when he first met Simon (see John 1), he said to him: "So you are Simon, the son of John? You shall be called Kepha." One day, he would receive this Aramaic name! Yes, at Caesarea Philippi, as recorded by Matthew.]
3. The person who translated this into Greek (Matthew or someone else) rendered it as "... You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church."
4. The translator did not render it as "... You are Petra, and on this petra ..." -- because "petra" is a feminine noun, and it would have been insulting to Simon to be given a feminine name. The translator did the next best thing, using the masculine noun ending (-os).
5. Some language scholars have determined that, by the first century A.D., the meaning of the words "petra" and "petros" had become interchangeable anyway.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 23, 2002.


Hi John, My name is Leszek and I am a Polish protestant that just found this page: Ad.1. There is no proof that St. Matthew’s gospel was written in any other language than Greek, as a matter of fact there are no traces of Matthew’s gospel being translated. Ad.2, 3. Since there is no Aramaic/Hebrew original trying to figure out how actually Jesus’ frazed Mtth.16:18 in His native language is of speculative value only: The translation you proposed is, as I believe, the least probable, why? If the original fraze was as you put it: "... You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church." there was a way to make it more accurate and reflecting the Aramaic text nearly perfectly: You are Petros and upon this Petros……. , or: You are Petros and upon you……,, Matthew did not write ,,Petros…Petros..,, (neither Petra…Petra) because it was not what Jesus said. The Greek original (and God-inspired) Petros….petra suggests that this distinction existed in what Jesus actually said, and in what way? - There is another noun in Aramaic/Hebrew for rock - tsuwr used in the OT around 150 times (kepha 2 times). So in Aramaic it could go like this: You are Kepha and upon this Tsuwr ….,, and that is much closer to what we have in original Greek. - According to John 1:42 kepha translated into Greek means petros and petros means stone(movable piece of rock) in English. If there were Aramaic-Greek dictionaries at Jesus’ times one would think that our Saviour copied one entry into w. 42. Of course kepha has double meaning; stone and rock. so even if Jesus said ,,Kepha….kepha,, Matthew’s distinction makes it clear they are not the same.

Ad.4. Would the name petra be insulting Peter? If you find the meaning of petra in Greek-English dictionary it should also say that petra was used to describe (as a metaphore of course) a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul, so it was used for men. But even if that (insult) was a case and as some claim petros=rock there could not have been any reasons for Matthew to translate it any other way but as Petros…Petros. Ad. 5. Josephus(37 CE –circa 100CE) in his ,,The Jewish War,, still makes the distinction. If you look into classical and koine Greek dictionaries done by secular scolars which do not care whether Peter was or not the first pope you do not find examples of petros=rock(like petra) because there are none. God bless you, Leszek

-- Leszek Zapart (lzapart@poczta.onet.pl), December 07, 2002.


^

-- ^ (^@^.^), December 08, 2002.

hey chavez, what a hypocrite you are to discuss theology and reply to my light posting with a slur. try not to take everything so serioulsy dude, it's only religion, a creation of man, and most of what is being discussed is past and no matter how much anyone theorizes about origins and translations, the reality is we'll never know, only guess, and as time goes on so more of the info gathered is going to become corrupt. so what's the point of being so asinine yourself in trying to belittle another person's thoughts? when's the last time you saw daylight? or took a long walk? or simply sat somewhere, like the ocean or top of a mountain and relaxed in creation. lighten up. oh, and have a nice day.

-- peter staniunas (pjs959@hotmail.com), June 05, 2003.

Wow, Peter.
After a year somewhere, you return here; and make me feel bad.

Thanks, it's nice to be remembered, though I regret to say I'd forgooten all about you. OK, so.

You were speaking lightheartedly. I do take things seriously, and you haven't a serious bone in your body. Fine and dandy; Pete. What brings you here?

Your neat opinion: ''it's only religion, a creation of man, and most of what is being discussed is past and no matter how much anyone theorizes about origins and translations, the reality is we'll never know, only guess.''

Oh; my side is guessing and your side is certain? Know what the Old Testamnet says about this? ''The fool says in his heart, There is no God--''. ''Only'' religion. Only the past, only guessing. Who told you religion is all about the past?

We look to the future, Pete. Not from curiosity, or fears. Faith gives us a reason to live and anticipate future glory. Just because you lack faith isn't a sign you're looking forward.

We Catholics are taught the three cardinal virtues of the soul are Faith, Hope and Love. Two of them (Faith, Hope) look forward to a future life. The third virtue, love is LIFE itself. God made us to love Him, and to give us all His love. He IS love.

If by giving you a mean-spirited answer in the past, I failed to give you the love you deserve, forgive me now. I'm just another human being and a sinner. But not a hypocrite.

I'm at a keyboard now; but I see daylight all day long; and I'll walk my dog in a minute; go walk in the park. You're right. God is good to me. I love nature too.
Ciao --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.


Another year or so and I am back again, out of curiosity, really. I still haven't been able to discover an answer as to why no pope has ever called himself Peter.

And Mr. Chavez, I have learned many things in my life, some trivial, some valuable. You feel bad? I didn't make you that way. It's a manifestation of your own mind. I have no such power over a person to determine their how their feelings are expressed or manufactured.

Initially, I sought information, inserted some personal feelings and thoughts of my own, and it somehow triggered a bitter, biting, reply from only you. Thank you for attempting to enlighten me, however, I don not require an education about Catholic interpretations of the bible; and I was somewhat surprised to discover you are the spokesperson for what Catholics believe as a whole. Now, when were you made Pope?

(As "you Catholics" are big on forgiveness, I am sure you will forgive my sense of humour, as some kind of altruistic gesture on your part, whether I know or know not what I do.)

Belief is so personal. Faith even more so. I would never presume such arrogance as to instruct another person in what they should believe about God. Each person finds God, or some spiritual power in their life, for better or worse. Dictators found God a good source of right for the extermination of people in WWII, as the Pope's found God a good source of right for the extermination of people in the Crusades. Many things have been done in the name of God. I wonder how many acts of God actually performed by man, that God would like to credit to God?

God is a symbol. A point. A beginning, not an end. A belief. Gather enough believers around any symbol, spin fantastic tales, add a dose of humanity, stir in mysticism, sprinkle some doubt here and there, and leave out just enough information to create curiosity and anyone could start a religion of some kind. It's been done and will be done again.

Look, I came here with an innocent question, seeking knowledge. You took it upon yourself to vent some kind of anger on me. For what reason? I simply asked a question and engaged your wrath for no reason I can imagine. Sound like a familiar story? You have no idea who I am, or why I asked that question, nor was it necessary that you do so. But I could have forgiven your ignorant reply, I suppose. I guess I expected more from people and I always will.

My kind of person exists in only 1% of the human population, did you know that? I understand things in a way that is extremely rare. I always have. I learned about all faiths on my own in grade school. They all have the same destination and different paths. They have manipulated their followers into believeing their path is THE ONLY WAY and that the faithless are damned or will die. Man did that to the words, not the other way around and God, well, I think however you choose to see it, Chavez, God is most likely ashamed of what man has done with all we have been given.

I'm happy you have a life outside of yourself. That's where Jesus tried to tell people happiness truly existed, in one another. The emptiness we feel inside, our godlessness, the void, is filled by how we treat others. Whoever he is to you, Jesus' words are good ones for a simple, peaceful, love filled life.

Be kind to yourself. I'm glad you have the space to walk your dog, and sun in your window. Most people do not.

I am blessed in my life. If my response harmed your thoughts, for that, I will teach myself more patience and try not to injure anyone again.

Jesus was a good man. He tried, but every now and then he got angry and I don't remember him asking anyone to forgive him, or tell anyone he was sorry. How human.

Peace, friend.

-- peter staniunas (pjs959@hotmail.com), April 14, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ