Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[Hesychios]

Hesy, may I say, if it doen’t happen to you before the end, in my opinion, it will happen in the in the final state of purifiction before you, for sure, move on.Peace, Carlan

May I ask what you are referring to?

 

[Hesychios]

Catholics can reject tradition, too, though, right? For example, they don’t fast on Wednesdays, do they?

And don’t commune infants.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I agree that this is what most Catholics think.

…in matters of teaching the correct faith and morals.

That limitation is important, as far as the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And don’t commune infants.

Hmm, I wonder when did the RCC change this practice, and why. And whether the Eastern Catholic Churches still commune infants.

 

[Carlan]

May I ask what you are referring to?

Michael,what i mean is that if the schism is not resolved before our death it will be resolved in the state of Purgatory for it will be in heaven that we will all have to be in perfect union with the Trinity, all the Saints and Angels. One in perfect and complete union. Am i not correct? Peace, Carlan

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Michael,what i mean is that if the schism is not resolved before our death it will be resolved in the state of Purgatory for it will be in heaven that we will all have to be in perfect union with the Trinity, all the Saints and Angels. One in perfect and complete union. Am i not correct? Peace, Carlan

I like to imagine St. John Maximovitch (Russian Orthodox) and St. Padre Pio (Roman Catholic), two ascetics and wonderworkers of the 20th century who died only some 3 years apart in the 1960s, looking down at our petty fights from Heaven, and shaking their heads…

 

[josie_L]

The understanding of that particular verse in Matthew 16 that I developed as an Evangelical was that the “rock” in this context was to be understood as Peter’s confession of faith and, as far as I know, I can retain that understanding as an Orthodox Christian. All Christians can perhaps agree that the true Rock is Christ Himself (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:4)

Peter was made rock by Christ who is Rock, i.e., Peter is united to Christ’s own rock solidness. There is no doubt that Matthew 16 is refering to Peter as rock, nevertheless, it is because of his confession of faith (revealed by the Father) that he was deemed as such (you cannot separate the confession of faith from the man who confessed it).

Catholics can reject tradition, too, though, right? For example, they don’t fast on Wednesdays, do they?

First, you are refering to tradition with a little “t” (not sacred Tradition), second, Catholics have not stopped fasting, i.e.,they just don’t fast on a specific day.

 

[searn77]

Peter was made rock by Christ who is Rock, i.e., Peter is united to Christ’s own rock solidness. There is no doubt that Matthew 16 is refering to Peter as rock, nevertheless, it is because of his confession of faith (revealed by the Father) that he was deemed as such (you cannot separate the confession of faith from the man who confessed it).

First, you are refering to tradition with a little “t” (not sacred Tradition), second, Catholics have not stopped fasting, i.e.,they just don’t fast on a specific day.

There are many interpretations of the “rock” in Matthew 16. Even if you read the fathers you find varying opinions. St. Augustine changed his mind on what he thought the “rock” was. Originally he thought it was Peter himself and later he understood it as Peter’s confession. I understand why this is important to Catholics but to the Orthodox I have never seen too much importance tied to the “rock” controversy for obvious reasons, as we don’t equate “Peter” and the “rock” necessarily to the Pope.

 

[josie_L]

And don’t commune infants.

Traditionally, the rite of baptism was commenced just outside the doors to the Church, so does this mean that we are changing something essential by not doing this anymore?

The infant is brought to the door of the church by the sponsors, where it is met by the priest. After the godparents have asked faith from the Church of God in the child’s name, the priest breathes upon its face and exorcises the evil spirit. St. Augustine (Ep. cxciv, Ad Sixtum) makes use of this Apostolic practice of exorcising to prove the existence of original sin. Then the infant’s forehead and breast are signed with the cross, the symbol of redemption.

Next follows the imposition of hands, a custom certainly as old as the Apostles. Some blessed salt is now placed in the mouth of the child. “When salt”, says the Catechism of the Council of Trent “is put into the mouth of person to be baptized, it evidently imports that, by the doctrine of faith and the gift of grace, he should be delivered from the corruption of sin, experience a relish for good works, and be delighted with the food of divine wisdom.”

Placing his stole over the child the priest introduces it into the church, and on the way to the font the sponsors make a profession of faith for the infant.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Not practicing infant communion (in the Roman rite) is not a change in truth but rather of a change in custom (reasons why it changed is mentioned in the article I provided).

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.htm

 

[josie_L]

There are many interpretations of the “rock” in Matthew 16. Even if you read the fathers you find varying opinions. St. Augustine changed his mind on what he thought the “rock” was. Originally he thought it was Peter himself and later he understood it as Peter’s confession. I understand why this is important to Catholics but to the Orthodox I have never seen too much importance tied to the “rock” controversy for obvious reasons, as we don’t equate “Peter” and the “rock” necessarily to the Pope.

There is no rock controversy because many Church fathers who claimed that the rock was Peter’s confession also claimed that Peter was the rock, i.e., they are not mutually exclusive since Peter was made rock as a result of his confession of faith (you cannot separate the confession from the man who confessed it), bottomline: Peter is the rock.

 

[Hesychios]

There is no rock controversy because many Church fathers who claimed that the rock was Peter’s confession also claimed that Peter was the rock, i.e., they are not mutually exclusive since Peter was made rock as a result of his confession of faith (you cannot separate the confession from the man who confessed it), bottomline: Peter is the rock.

So long as he adheres to the Orthodox Faith

 

[searn77]

There is no rock controversy because many Church fathers who claimed that the rock was Peter’s confession also claimed that Peter was the rock, i.e., they are not mutually exclusive since Peter was made rock as a result of his confession of faith (you cannot separate the confession from the man who confessed it), bottomline: Peter is the rock.

There most certainly is a controversy. I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, that you cannot separate Peter from his confession. And I’m not saying that Peter is not the rock, I’m just saying there’s obviously a controversy as you’ll hear people ask “is the rock Peter or his confession?” Again I’m not saying that Peter isn’t the rock, I’m just saying that to deny that there’s a controversy about who the rock is is to deny reality.

 

[searn77]

Traditionally, the rite of baptism was commenced just outside the doors to the Church, so does this mean that we are changing something essential by not doing this anymore?

Not practicing infant communion (in the Roman rite) is not a change in truth but rather of a change in custom (reasons why it changed is mentioned in the article I provided).

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.htm

Not allowing infants to receive the precious Body and Blood of our Lord is not comparable to where a baptism takes place. I personally do think you are changing something essential by not receiving infants, but that is just my belief which is in obvious contrast to Roman Catholic belief.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Not practicing infant communion (in the Roman rite) is not a change in truth but rather of a change in custom (reasons why it changed is mentioned in the article I provided).

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.htm

Josie, that website by David McDonald you gave us, is awesome! A treasure trove of information. (The Banana Republican site is awesome, too!)

Thanks for your well researched posts, I’m learning every day from them.

 

[Hesychios]

Not practicing infant communion (in the Roman rite) is not a change in truth but rather of a change in custom (reasons why it changed is mentioned in the article I provided).

So it is a custom to excommunicate our children?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

There most certainly is a controversy. I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, that you cannot separate Peter from his confession. And I’m not saying that Peter is not the rock, I’m just saying there’s obviously a controversy as you’ll hear people ask “is the rock Peter or his confession?” Again I’m not saying that Peter isn’t the rock, I’m just saying that to deny that there’s a controversy about who the rock is is to deny reality.

I agree that there’s a controversy, in the sense that this question comes up regularly, and people dispute it all the time. I wonder, though, are those disputing it sufficiently aware of the passage below, from John’s Gospel, Chapter 1. In the quoted passage, a bunch of people confess that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, starting with John the Baptist and ending with the Apostle Nathanael. Peter is just one of the confessors, not even the first (the first confessor is John the Baptist), and yet Jesus singles him out and greets him with the prophecy that he will be called Cephas, right at the time of their first encounter:

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm

32
John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him.
33
I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.’
34
Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.”
35
The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36
and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.”
37
The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38
Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?”
39
He said to them,“Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
40
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41
He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).
43
The next day he decided to go to Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to him, “Follow me.”
44
Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter.
45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and also the prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
46
But Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
47
Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.”
48
Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.”
49
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”

I really think that this passage destroys the argument that anyone who confesses Christ can be called “Cephas” or “Peter” or “Rock”. Out of six different people (John the Baptist, Andrew, John the Apostle, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael) who believed that he was the Messiah, the confessions of four of whom (John the Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael) are explicitely recorded in this first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus singled out Simon, to be renamed “Cephas” (Aramaic) which means “Rock” in English. Reading the quoted text, it seems that Jesus didn’t even wait for Simon to open his mouth and confess his belief in Jesus being the Messiah, he practically greeted Simon with this prophecy, before Simon could say anything at all!

 

[scottm]

Supposing that’s true, one then has to define what it means to be the “rock.”

You know, does Peter’s status as rock negate and erase the apostleship of all the other Apostles, as 99% of Roman Catholics on this forum believe? (“Join Rome or you’re not part of the true Church!” rallying cry – you know the one.) Or did being the rock mean “feed my sheep,” as asserted by the Orthodox?

The definition of “rock” is, was, and always will be the issue of controversy.

 

[josie_L]

So long as he adheres to the **orthodox **Faith

Not to worry Jesus prayed that Peter would remain constant in the faith (Luke 22:32).

 

[brb3]

So you’re saying the fact that the church added it makes it a good idea?

Yes, it was a GREAT idea. It added clarity and correctness to the Creed … which was being perverted by heretics at that point in history.

Was it wrong for us to begin using the word TRINITY, to describe the Father/Son/H.S. ?

 

[brb3]

I’m curious what good reason the Church had for adopting the Marian dogmas?

The Beliefs on Mary were commonly acknowledged in writings by 250 AD. And accepted equally by both EAST & WEST. And, when heretics began distorting the FACTS … the Church formalized the teachings in written form.