Question on "2 Lungs" of the Church

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hello dear friends. I have a question.
I saw this thread on the OBOB earlier mentioning "2 Lungs". Did this concept arise from out of the RCC or EOC? And what are the EOs views on it. Thank you and God bless
Steve

http://www.christianforums.com/t7468666/
Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens: Will the Two Lungs of the Church Breathe....

*snip*


...Together Again?

*Permission to post full text*

By Deacon Keith Fournier
5/20/2010

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Move toward full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches most important development of the Third Christian Millennium
The move toward full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is prompted by the Holy Spirit. It is the most important development of the Third Christian Millennium. It has extraordinary implications for the West, indeed for the whole world, at a critical time in history. Let us pray that it happens - for the sake of a world still waiting to be set free and reborn into the New World of the Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

I believe this phrase originated with Pope John Paul II. Some Orthodox ecumenists may have adopted the phrase. Recently there has been a backing away from this phrase by both. It is a heresy and developing it to its ultimate conclusion may even be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I think the phrase is improperly applied to the eastern Orthodox instead of the eastern Catholics.

 

[Barky]

I believe this phrase originated with Pope John Paul II. Some Orthodox ecumenists may have adopted the phrase. Recently there has been a backing away from this phrase by both. It is a heresy and developing it to its ultimate conclusion may even be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

This.

The Romans are in schism with the Orthodox, they do not share in our sacramental life nor are they in communion of belief. The Romans don't see it this way. The two cannot be two "lungs" of the same Church if they are not in communion of belief. This is a simple logical conclusion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This.

The Romans are in schism with the Orthodox, they do not share in our sacramental life nor are they in communion of belief. The Romans don't see it this way. The two cannot be two "lungs" of the same Church if they are not in communion of belief. This is a simple logical conclusion.

That does indeed appear logical to me. Thank you

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, it makes no sense. just filling people with that nonsense that the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are really one in the same, and it's semantics and politics that divide.

 

[Joshua G.]

I think the phrase is improperly applied to the eastern Orthodox instead of the eastern Catholics.

I'm not an expert on this, but from what I've read this statement above is very important. I am pretty sure that I remember when Poppe John Paul II used this phrase he was not referring to Orthodox Christians, but to Eastern Catholics.

It is true that overly zealous Catholics apply this to us, but the original intent was not to apply a phrase to use thereby suggesting that the Church is split in two.

I personally find it to be a little overly simplistic even when applied within the Catholic Church as to suggest that for the Church to be whole, it needs two lungs. Using lungs leads one to believe that the Church is somehow not whole without one of the lungs (but Catholic means "whole") or that adding another "lung" is somehow superfulous or even unnatural (what if an East Asian rite not similar to Western or Easter rites developped over many generations iwthin the RCC... are they an abboration? Certainly the RCC wouldn't say they are but it goes to show this phrase implies that there is somehow magic in the concept of two rites... not one, not three... two.)

Now, surely it would be true to say that the POpe wasn't looking to take it so far. However, I do think that Catholics tend to take it that far... perhaps not in terms of a 3rd lung being an abhoration but that the Church can't exist properly without both East and West. While I agree that it is sad and tragic that brothers have been divided... the fact remains that both of our Churches must believe that we are who, no matter how small or monolithic we become. We must believe that we are breathing fine regardless of how many different rites we can boast.

Josh

 

[Christos Anesti]

We have a Western rite too.

Western Orthodoxy

 

[Joshua G.]

Right, we have Western Rite, not because it is more or less necessary than Eastern rite... it just is. It's like an ottoman doesn't make a house more or less of a house... but it can make it homier for those who ottomans (is that how that's spelled? the foot stool thingy?).

 

[MKJ]

Right, we have Western Rite, not because it is more or less necessary than Eastern rite... it just is. It's like an ottoman doesn't make a house more or less of a house... but it can make it homier for those who ottomans (is that how that's spelled? the foot stool thingy?).

Yep, that's it. And they can conveniently be used for storage, or as a coffee table. Just like the Western rite.

 

[Coralie]

Yep, that's it. And they can conveniently be used for storage, or as a coffee table. Just like the Western rite.

Lol

 

[Joshua G.]

Yep, that's it. And they can conveniently be used for storage, or as a coffee table. Just like the Western rite.

Your comment was funny, but I wasn't sure if it should be interpreted as beign critical of my analogy as well. If it was the latter, that's fine, because if you understood it the way it seems you may have, then it deserved criticism for the say that the Western Rite is like a footstool can easily come across as crass at best...

I want to clarify that I wasn't simply comparing the Western rite to a footstool. My point was to say that it is natural for a Church to have many rites, just as it is natural for a house to have different ammenities that make the house feel like home to certain people. So, I like to have a chair to sit at when I eat dinner, but someone from another culture might want a mat to sit on-- sitting up high on a chair feels foreign to them and neither is intrinsically better.

My point is that a Church adjusts to the needs of the people, not so that it can be "more whole", (A house is just as whole and dinner is just as great whether I sit on a mat and eat or sit up at a table. If only the former is available then so be it... I need to adjust... it's no less a house, it's no less a dinner.) Rather, the Church adjusts so that the people in the Church are most easily able to understand and grow in the Church the way God intended.

Catholics (I don't know if most or just many) often make the frustrating, odd-ball argument that somehow their Church "wholer" because it has a lot of rites whereas we have one main rite and a few western rites that are in flux. But if we make it about how many rites we have, does the Church get Churchier if we tack on yet another rite? Does it lose some Churchy-ness for every rite she lacks? No... the Church is by definition whole within itself... even if it dwindles down to a few holy ascetics in an Egyptian desert as the end draws near.

Josh

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We have a Western rite too.

Western Orthodoxy

Thanks for that link

 

[St. Columcille]

To me the underlying problem is Apostolic succession. The office in which the priests hold, regardless of the errors of the individual priest, poses a serious kink in my book on the EO condemnation against the Roman Catholic Church. If we understand that Constantine was a saint, even given the title, yet he was baptized by an Arian bishop and supported Arians his whole life as an emperor, and we have here smaller doctrinal differences than with the Arians who believed that Christ was a creature and not God in essence... then we have an issue which even the Donatists might be reflected on. Constantine should be stripped of his title of Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church to reflect a consistency against the Roman Catholic Church; or we are to reject the same argument of the Donatists and recognize that the Roman Catholic Church has valid sacraments and thus the division between the RC and EO is one of a divide that should have been prevented but was not due to human failure.

 

[Joshua G.]

Is Constantine not a saint in the RCC? (forgive my ignorance... was he post-schism? I should know this...)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is Constantine not a saint in the RCC? (forgive my ignorance... was he post-schism? I should know this...)

Interesting question

 

[Michael G]

This.

The Romans are in schism with the Orthodox, they do not share in our sacramental life nor are they in communion of belief. The Romans don't see it this way. The two cannot be two "lungs" of the same Church if they are not in communion of belief. This is a simple logical conclusion.

Or to put it philosophically: quantity x can not be quantity notx, when x and notx are mutually exclusive of each other, without contradiciting itself. If Eastern Orthodox Christianity sees Roman Catholicism as being in schism and heresy, then Roman Catholicism can not be part of Eastern Orthodoxy without contradiciting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Christos Anesti]

My point is that a Church adjusts to the needs of the people, not so that it can be "more whole", (A house is just as whole and dinner is just as great whether I sit on a mat and eat or sit up at a table. If only the former is available then so be it... I need to adjust... it's no less a house, it's no less a dinner.) Rather, the Church adjusts so that the people in the Church are most easily able to understand and grow in the Church the way God intended.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that we had a Western Rite too because many people don't know that. At times people say "hey we Catholics have both a Western and Eastern Rite" but we Orthodox have that as well.

 

[St. Columcille]

Is Constantine not a saint in the RCC? (forgive my ignorance... was he post-schism? I should know this...)

Origen, Tertullian, these were also Church Fathers, but they were not given the title "Saint." Constantine is referenced in the Catholic Encylopedia as "Constantine the Great" but not as a Saint as you see with Catholic saints like St. Francis of Assisi and other examples.

I do not think the RCC has a feast day in honor of him. The only St. Constantine I see that is honored is St. Constantine king of Cornwall of which March 11th is the feastday, but this is not the same Constantine the Great.

 

[Michael G]

Origen, Tertullian, these were also Church Fathers, but they were not given the title "Saint." Constantine is referenced in the Catholic Encylopedia as "Constantine the Great" but not as a Saint as you see with Catholic saints like St. Francis of Assisi and other example.

Last I checked, Origen was a heretic and Tertullian had himself castrated and thus will never be made a saint.