Traditionalist and non-traditionalist Catholics

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Dominus Iesus is the document I was referring to. It was written by Benedict and issued near the end of John Paul II's reign. While it may not specifically reject the two lung theory or the 'sister church' terminology, it effectively does so by saying that there is only one Church of Christ and that it subsists in the Catholic Church. Yes, it does go on to refer to the Orthodox as 'particular churches', apparently meaning that they have valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. However, looking at the description as the Orthodox as 'wounded' for not being in union with Peter, said document at the very least throws cold water on the two lung description of the Church of Christ.

I should add that my memory appears to have been proven to be partially in error in this matter. I thought that Benedict totally rejected the 'sister church' terminology. However, doing a quick search now, it seems that he only rejected it in regards to Protestants, since the Catholic Church does not consider them churches, but 'ecclesiastical communities', without a valid Eucharist or Apostolic Succession. While some may claim that the theoretical doctrine of two lungs to the Church of Christ is still valid, and/or the 'sister church' terminology, such is iffy at the very least. However, the fact that the Catholic Church does allow Orthodox to partake of Catholic Communion, does perhaps allow some justification for the use of the two lung/sister church terminology?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,796
3,387
✟243,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think Dominus Iesus rejects the two lung theory. The "subsists in" comes right out of Lumen Gentium, and it is highly unlikely that John Paul II thought his language about "two lungs" contradicted LG or that Ratzinger thought a reiteration of LG contradicted John Paul II, who was Pope at the time of Dominus Iesus' writing. DI does not even mention Orthodoxy or even the East except to deny an easy dichotomy (logical vs symbolic).

This question requires an analysis of Ut Unum Sint. There's no two ways about it.
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟120,394.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
On some issues.

We share about 85%-90% of the faith together. And both Churches have both valid masses and sacraments (mysteries). We both adhere to Holy Tradition and Holy Writ.
Isn't the position on both having a valid Mass one-sided though?
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟120,394.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If it helps, my way of contextualizing the Eastern Orthodox Church is that when John Paul used the analogy of two lungs, he was taking both a pastoral and diplomatic approach to the situation. They kept Christianity alive in places where it might have otherwise died out entirely. Personally, my suspicion is that the Protestants would never be able to survive what the Eastern Orthodox have survived.

That's pretty much how I interpret what John Paul said about them. They absolutely do have something to contribute. Their cultural experiences over the past millennium of separation have had a profound effect on their faith and worship. Their history, experiences, persecutions, occupations and general survival have had an effect upon them.

The Orthodox perspective would indescribably enrich the Catholic Church were they to come back to Rome. Until they do, however, an approximation of the true faith is the most they can hope for.
I am grateful and appreciative for their defense of Christianity and I view them as brothers and sisters in Christ obviously. Catholic nations have also defended the faith though, I think Hungary would be an example and Poland.

It's not all so clear though. I read of a massacre by Orthodox Cossacks in Poland:Khmelnytsky Uprising - Wikipedia I'm not saying the Polish Catholics were completely innocent either.

They brutally tortured and killed a priest too but I can't find the page about it. The main source of confusion for me is that if the Catholic position is that the Orthodox are at fault in the schism then why do they get such respect? It's seems over the top.

What do you think about what I pasted and linked in post #82?

EDIT: I changed it to say brothers AND SISTERS in Christ
 
Upvote 0

Markie Boy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2017
1,640
977
United States
✟401,138.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
After having been around the whole, Trad - Non-Trad thing and seeing all the dispute and division - in practicality Catholicism is all divided up just like protestantism. Some reject the pope, some say you should not attend Novus Ordo, some say only communion on the tongue, and the list goes on and on.

And the idea that having a pope fixes things is disproved when the current one opens his mouth.
 
Upvote 0