I guess first question is if there really are two lungs as JPII states? (I’ve read where OC strongly disagree – which I guess they obviously would).
Well, I disagree but I don’t see how that can be so obvious.
I have posted before that the analogy is a poor one. I don’t know of one that properly fits, but ‘two’ is not it.
Four or five maybe.
I didn’t always think like this, but in the last couple of years I have thought about it more. The Coptic and Jacobite/Antiochian traduitions are every bit as dignified in their own ways as the Byzantine, perhaps moreso. So lumping all three traditions together doesn’t make any sense. In fact, thew Byzantine tradition is so much like the traditional Roman Catholic one could (from another perspective) call them the two western churches.
So when we say “two lungs” we are really saying Roman and those that are not-Roman.
It implies ROME +/= EVERYONE ELSE
… and as long as we keep thinking like that the reconciliation we hope and pray for has dim prospects.
I like this chart, found on an Eastern Catholic website, which (in spite of some small technical error) illustrates a better more balanced image of the church.
(
Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And another, perhaps better …
http://ericsammons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1368.jpg
Second is if seems like EC’s come most closely to breathing with both lungs since they seem to have to balance in a precarious position at times?
It is precarious.