Orthodox vs. Catholic

[Peter_J]

If you’ve read his Encyclical, Pope John Paul II is clearly referring to the Orthodox Church, not the Eastern Catholics.

So you do not agree with Pope John Paul II’s view regarding this?

I have read it (at least once, possibly twice); but it’s been a few years.

I took a look at paragraph 54, and I don’t think it’s incompatible with my idea that the Eastern lung is the Eastern heritage.

 

[Milliardo]

I took a look at paragraph 54, and I don’t think it’s incompatible with my idea that the Eastern lung is the Eastern heritage.

Well, I am not sure if we’re merely going after semantics here, but the way I see it is that your thinking is in denial with the Orthodox Church as the other lung of the Church. Or to further expound it, you see more the past–that is, the heritage or patrimony–of the East as the other lung, which is not necessarily the Orthodox Church. Since Pope John Paul II speaks on present terms, that the other lung is the Orthodox Church, you then deny this reality by saying it’s the heritage of the East that’s the other lung. In short then, you totally cut off the Orthodox Church from the equation by substituting the term heritage, to make it appear that the two lungs of the Church consists of the Catholic Church as it is today, and the heritage or patrimony of the past, which once included the Orthodox Church when the Church was still one. A reading of the paragraphs from 50 to 61 however will not net you that notion, as Pope John Paul II is very specific he is talking about the Orthodox Church and its present relations with the Catholic Church. Thus, the correct rendering of the two lungs of the Church would then be the Catholic and Orthodox Churches–not the Catholic Church and the patrimony of the past, which would do violence to John Paul’s thinking.

 

[Peter_J]

Milliardo,

When I said before that I consider the Eastern lung to refer to the Eastern heritage of the Church, I should have completed the thought by adding that I see the Western lung as referring to the Western heritage of the Church. (That may or may not have been clear already, but I thought I’d better say it explicitly.)

Concerning paragraphs 50-61, I’ll read them and get back to you.

God bless,
Peter.

 

[Peter_J]

I think I can see your point in part. If we start with the assumption that the Eastern lung is either the Eastern Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox, then I can agree that Ut Unum Sint is more compatible with it being the Eastern Orthodox.

However, it seems to me to be just as compatible with the idea that the two lungs are the Western heritage and Eastern heritage of the Church.

So at this point, we need to look to other sources for deciding between two reasonable interpretations. For me personally, I prefer the “heritage” interpretation, because the alternative comes too close to “Branch Theory” (which is just as unacceptable to the Orthodox as it is to Catholics) for my comfort.

Or to further expound it, you see more the past–that is, the heritage or patrimony–of the East as the other lung, which is not necessarily the Orthodox Church.

Our heritage is rooted in the past, but it comes to us through living churches: the Eastern lung is a heritage which comes to us through the Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Assyrian Church of the East, etc. The Western lung is a heritage which comes to us through the Latin Catholic Church, WRO, SSPX, PNCC, Old Catholic Churches, etc. (Even the Anglicans and Protestants, although lacking Orders, carry on the Western heritage in some ways.)

 

[Volodymyr]

LUNGS OF CHURCH

Perhaps we are trying to make too much of this analogue first stated by Vjacheslav Ivanov on accepted into Russian Catolic church:

*(Mое православие) омрачалось наличием чувства какой-то неудовлетворенности, становящейся все мучительней и мучительней от сознания, что я лишен другой половины живого того клада святости и благодати, что я дышу наподобие чахоточных одним только легким". *

My orthodoxy since baptism was clouded by the presence of a feeling of a certain incompleteness, which became more painful and painful from the consciousness that I was deprived of the other half othe living treasure of Holiness and Grace that I am breathing like a consumptive with only one lung.

In 1983 Roman Bishop Ioann Pavel II at symposija on works of Ivanov said :

“*Невозможно христианину, более того, католику дышать одним легким: нужно иметь два легких — Восточное и Западное”. *

It is impossible for a christian, more less for a catolic to breathe with one lung - it is necessary to have two lungs - Eastern and Western.

Therefore, although an interesting analogue - one particularly interesting to Catolics as it is emphasized by Bishop of Rome. However, to try to force the analogue will lead to problems - certainly it is possible to live with one lung, from birth, after pneumonectomy. Many Orthodox and many Catolics live holy lives without much knowledge of other church. The analogue of Ivanov suggests that his Orthodox lung was healthy while the Western lung was consumptive (not what he meant surely).

 

[Peter_J]

Re: LUNGS OF CHURCH

Thanks, Volodymyr. I don’t think I’ve ever seen actual quotations from Vjacheslav Ivanov before.

And yes, perhaps you’re right about trying to make too much of the analogy. (Even JPII only used it one time in Ut unum sint.)

Blessings,
Peter.