C
_Christopher
Guest
Because I am being honest with myself. Do you think this is fun for me? Its not, it is very worrying.Really? Then why question the Church?
- Status
C
_Christopher
Guest
What does that mean?
M
martino
Guest
_Christopher_:
Chris, you seem to be having the same argument in two different thread at the same time! That must be exhausting. In reading this thread I think I understand you a little better. I see that you are not attacking the Church but have a valid concern and I can respect that. We are actually on the same side because I too insist on total honesty and facing all possible contradictions head on. You are just coming at it from the other direction, I always assume that the Church is right and from there I investigate the claim against the Church. You seem to have assumed that the Church is wrong and from there intend to prove it. That is just the way it seems and may not be at all what you are doing.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
_Christopher_:
I think this means that as we were once with the Eastern Orthodox, let us be NOW with the Eastern Catholic Churches, breathing with the two “lungs” Currently, the vast majority of people are in the Western (Roman) rite so the Eastern Catholic Churches are a minority. In the first century, both were about equally large, so I also think this is the Pope calling for an increase in membership in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.
Yes, the attitude toward the EO’s has changed, and I hope one day we will be reunited. I would love to see them come on back and heal the wounds. Hey, we re-united once before, we can do it again.
I don’t see this as saying that the Eastern Orthodox are the other lung. He said “Eastern Churches” not “Eastern Orthodox Churches” - so this still appears to still be discussing the Eastern Catholic Churches as the other lung.
I think this means that as we were once with the Eastern Orthodox, let us be NOW with the Eastern Catholic Churches, breathing with the two “lungs” Currently, the vast majority of people are in the Western (Roman) rite so the Eastern Catholic Churches are a minority. In the first century, both were about equally large, so I also think this is the Pope calling for an increase in membership in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.
Yes, the attitude toward the EO’s has changed, and I hope one day we will be reunited. I would love to see them come on back and heal the wounds. Hey, we re-united once before, we can do it again.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
As I Byzantine Catholic, as an Eastern Christian, it appears to me that Christopher is taking the line that the Catholic Church is Roman/Western.
I hope I am wrong with this but that is how this looks to me.
The Church has both and Eastern and a Western component, with out the other each is lacking in the fullness of the Church.
Now the East is split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic, but there is an Eastern Catholic portion which the Holy Father has called the “Other Lung”.
I hope I am wrong with this but that is how this looks to me.
The Church has both and Eastern and a Western component, with out the other each is lacking in the fullness of the Church.
Now the East is split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic, but there is an Eastern Catholic portion which the Holy Father has called the “Other Lung”.
F
Funky_Cedars
Guest
it seems to me that the ‘lung’ in question is our eastern tradition. when you look at tradition, its real hard to see a difference between we eastern catholics and our orthodox bretheren. effectively, both catholics and orthodox use the same ‘lung’, and have been since Jesus breathed into it. to bring the orthodox back into the church will not require any change in holy mother church; pretty much it will only require them to resume their understanding of the eternal primacy of peter’s chair. while they do reject her authority, they really don’t believe differently than the catholic church.
its kinda the flip of what you see way too often- folks calling themselves ‘catholic’ while rejecting so much of the faith. the orthodox hold on to virtually every tenet of the faith, yet refuse to call themselves ‘catholic’.
anywho, i hope this helps ya christopher.
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry
its kinda the flip of what you see way too often- folks calling themselves ‘catholic’ while rejecting so much of the faith. the orthodox hold on to virtually every tenet of the faith, yet refuse to call themselves ‘catholic’.
anywho, i hope this helps ya christopher.
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry
R
rfk
Guest
I think you are both missing the point of his “two lungs” analogy. He is talking about one lung being western spiritual tradition and the other lung being eastern spiritual tradition. He explictly includes Eastern Orthodox Churches as being part of the “other lung”. For example, he states: 'May the memory of the time when the Church “breathed with both lungs”. This sentence, and tense, can only make sense when discussing pre-schism.
Here he is addressing the Armenian Orthodox Church, not the Catholic one (from APOSTOLIC VOYAGE IN ARMENIA ECUMENICAL CELEBRATION :
He is also specifically addressing ecumenism in ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER
However, JPII has also used the other lung analogy when discussing appointing new bishops to Eastern Catholic churches, and the rich tradition of eastern spirituality.
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Christopher,
I am too pressed for time right this second to reply properly, but at a quick read of this thread, I would agree with Cedars and RFK that the “other lung” refers to Eastern tradition and spirituality, as lived and expressed in its totality by those of the East - the Churches of the East, both Orthodox and Catholic.
The analogy is of two lungs - East and West; the Eastern lung is not fully functional, being impaired in its ability to fully contribute to the body’s respiratory processes by the division between the Catholic Church and its sisters and brothers of the Orthodox East.
Many years,
Neil
I am too pressed for time right this second to reply properly, but at a quick read of this thread, I would agree with Cedars and RFK that the “other lung” refers to Eastern tradition and spirituality, as lived and expressed in its totality by those of the East - the Churches of the East, both Orthodox and Catholic.
The analogy is of two lungs - East and West; the Eastern lung is not fully functional, being impaired in its ability to fully contribute to the body’s respiratory processes by the division between the Catholic Church and its sisters and brothers of the Orthodox East.
Many years,
Neil
V
vangrosh
Guest
I’ll give you a really short answer. First, the statements of “no salvation outside the Church” and “everyone must be subject to the Roman Pontiff” are very general statements that were never intended to be the modus operandi of every period of the Church. These statements and others like them have been directed to very specific problems and schisms in Church history such as the great east/west schism in 1054 and the Protestant schism. These statements by the Church were directed to those already IN the Church to tell them the graveness of separating from the Church of Christ and rebelling against the Pope. The wounds of schism on the Body of Christ were open and bleeding during those times. Now the wounds have healed but the scars remain. What the Church is doing today is simply recognizing that she cannot blame our separated brethren like the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants for the rebellion, schism and protest that happened 1000 / 500 years ago.
I was raised an Evangelical Protestant, yet I had nothing to do with the Protestant rebellion. I was living my life and following Christ the best I could. Even though I had the label of ‘Protestant’, I was not protesting the Catholic Church or rejecting the authority of the Pope, I was just indifferent. My Protestant brothers and sisters and I were not the intended audience of those statements made by the Catholic Church. In our day and age the Church is simply making this point more clear. So the teaching of the Church on this point did not change. However, the times, circumstances and intended audience for these statements no longer exist.
Hope this helps,
Ric
I was raised an Evangelical Protestant, yet I had nothing to do with the Protestant rebellion. I was living my life and following Christ the best I could. Even though I had the label of ‘Protestant’, I was not protesting the Catholic Church or rejecting the authority of the Pope, I was just indifferent. My Protestant brothers and sisters and I were not the intended audience of those statements made by the Catholic Church. In our day and age the Church is simply making this point more clear. So the teaching of the Church on this point did not change. However, the times, circumstances and intended audience for these statements no longer exist.
Hope this helps,
Ric
M
martino
Guest
Ric, I like that answer, makes a lot of sense to me! 
R
rfk
Guest
Here is a good example that illustrates your point.
We had a family gathering/cookout with all the in-laws a couple of weekends ago. I found myself having a conversation with two brothers-in-law (BIL) on just what the Church teaching was regarding salvation outside the Church.
There was my Lutheran BIL who was raised in the Lutheran Church, married in the Lutheran Church, and attends Lutheran services regularly.
There was my ex-Catholic BIL who:* Went through 12 years of parochial school.* Who received all the typical sacraments of Baptism, Confession, First Communion, and (first) marriage.
- Whose parents attend daily Mass and are a strong example of the faith in practice.
- And who is on his 3rd marriage, and no longer accepts Christianity, much less the Catholic Church.
I explained that the Catechism teaches that all faiths have some elements of the ultimate truth (God), and thus salvation is possible to all people who practice their religion “in good faith”. Not every person has been given the grace or opportunity to learn and realize the fullness of truth that exists within the Catholic Church. After all, conversion is ultimately due to grace – it isn’t anything we merit. So I explained to my Lutheran BIL that the Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for good Lutherans to go to heaven.
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
RFK,
next to no one who leaves the Catholic Church believes they are leaving the “True Church”. For various reasons, they stop believeing that the Catholic Church is not the one complete wholly true Church.
Under the above circumstances which would apply to just about everyone who leaves the Catholic Faith, They can no more be outside the catholic Faith after leaving the Chuch than those who start outside the Catholic Faith and don’t come to the Catholic Church.
The very same arguments made for those who are allready outside of the “obvious catholic Church” can be made for those who start within it and leave.
God generally speaking gave us reason and logic and he gave it to almost everyone, people leave or don’t come to the catholic Church because they don’t seek the truth because it is easier not to.
Does not the Father send the Spirit to those who seek him to prompt them to find the truth.
next to no one who leaves the Catholic Church believes they are leaving the “True Church”. For various reasons, they stop believeing that the Catholic Church is not the one complete wholly true Church.
Under the above circumstances which would apply to just about everyone who leaves the Catholic Faith, They can no more be outside the catholic Faith after leaving the Chuch than those who start outside the Catholic Faith and don’t come to the Catholic Church.
The very same arguments made for those who are allready outside of the “obvious catholic Church” can be made for those who start within it and leave.
God generally speaking gave us reason and logic and he gave it to almost everyone, people leave or don’t come to the catholic Church because they don’t seek the truth because it is easier not to.
Does not the Father send the Spirit to those who seek him to prompt them to find the truth.
Z
ZoeTheodora
Guest
Here’s my deux centimes about the varioous issues discussed in this thread.
First, re the Pope’s words:
(I’m not mentioning Eastern Catholics here only because I don’t want to muddy the waters. Of course, ECs do belong to the Catholic Church, and yes, they are our Other Lung. But they are relatively few in number compared with the Orthodox. Obviously the hoped-for reunion of Catholics and Orthodox would really beef up that Other Lung!)
As far as Unam Sanctam goes: In the light of Vatican II, I see no problem with it. Invincibly ignorant Orthodox (and Protestants for that matter) are “confided to Peter” and “subject to the Roman pontiff” whether they acknowledge it or not. After all, they are partially and imperfectly united to the Catholic Church. If they are imperfectly united to the true Church, then it follows that they are imperfectly united to Peter’s successor.
(To paraphrase Karl Rahner, they are “Anonymous Catholics.” 
)
Non-Catholics who deliberately reject the Catholic Church–without the excuse of invincible ignorance–are in much more of a pickle, methinks. And those who viciously malign and calumniate the Catholic Church–well, all I can say is: pray for them. The Athonite monks who call our Holy father the anti-Christ…those rabidly anti-Catholic priests like Frs. Azkoul and Romanides who lose no opportunity to vilify Catholicism…well, IMHO, they may be in deep doo-doo if they persist in their uncharitable hostility toward Christ’s Church. Of course, only Jesus knows the heart, and only He knows what mitigating factors exist in each case. But I don’t think it’s ever safe to implcabaly oppose and vilify the Church Jesus bought with His precious Blood.
Moreover, I don’t think it’s “unecumenical” to say so. We are judged according to our lights and by the disposition of our hearts. The saintly little Orthodox baba who lives a deeply spiritual life, oblivious to the claims of Rome, is no doubt on the fast track to Heaven. But the rabid anti-Catholic who attacks the Catholic Church is in another boat altogether. (Even in his/her case, though, only Jesus knows what mitigating factors apply…)
Blessings,
ZT
First, re the Pope’s words:
Other have noted this, but I’d like to emphasize it, too: He’s not referring here to today’s Eastern Orthodox Churches. He’s referring to the pre-Schism East. Before the Great Schism, East and West breathed with “both lungs.” This is a statement of historical fact. It has nothing to do with the question of how we regard EOxy today. The pope is merely observing that we used to be united with all our Eastern brethren, and, when we were, they functioned as the Church’s other lung.
(I’m not mentioning Eastern Catholics here only because I don’t want to muddy the waters. Of course, ECs do belong to the Catholic Church, and yes, they are our Other Lung. But they are relatively few in number compared with the Orthodox. Obviously the hoped-for reunion of Catholics and Orthodox would really beef up that Other Lung!)
As far as Unam Sanctam goes: In the light of Vatican II, I see no problem with it. Invincibly ignorant Orthodox (and Protestants for that matter) are “confided to Peter” and “subject to the Roman pontiff” whether they acknowledge it or not. After all, they are partially and imperfectly united to the Catholic Church. If they are imperfectly united to the true Church, then it follows that they are imperfectly united to Peter’s successor.
(To paraphrase Karl Rahner, they are “Anonymous Catholics.” )Non-Catholics who deliberately reject the Catholic Church–without the excuse of invincible ignorance–are in much more of a pickle, methinks. And those who viciously malign and calumniate the Catholic Church–well, all I can say is: pray for them. The Athonite monks who call our Holy father the anti-Christ…those rabidly anti-Catholic priests like Frs. Azkoul and Romanides who lose no opportunity to vilify Catholicism…well, IMHO, they may be in deep doo-doo if they persist in their uncharitable hostility toward Christ’s Church. Of course, only Jesus knows the heart, and only He knows what mitigating factors exist in each case. But I don’t think it’s ever safe to implcabaly oppose and vilify the Church Jesus bought with His precious Blood.
Moreover, I don’t think it’s “unecumenical” to say so. We are judged according to our lights and by the disposition of our hearts. The saintly little Orthodox baba who lives a deeply spiritual life, oblivious to the claims of Rome, is no doubt on the fast track to Heaven. But the rabid anti-Catholic who attacks the Catholic Church is in another boat altogether. (Even in his/her case, though, only Jesus knows what mitigating factors apply…)
Blessings,
ZT
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
ZOE, those who leave the catholic faith are in no more danger than those who don’t come to the faith, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot condemn those who leave the catholic faith becasue of their lack of zeal for the truth or more to the point their lack of investigation as to whether the Catholic Faith is the truth or not, any more than you can condemn those who aren’t catholic for failing to investigate properly whether their faith is the true correct faith or not.
Remember, the Father sends the Holy Spirit to all those who seek him to help them find him. All those who are not catholic yet who are for eg. Protestant, has not God sent them the Holy Spirit to bring them to him and his Church.
Either God sends people help or not, if he does then theoretically speaking if we listen to that help then we must come to the Father, if we come to the Father and it is not in the Catholic faith/Church then the CAtholic Church/faith is then not required for salvation.
Remember, the Father sends the Holy Spirit to all those who seek him to help them find him. All those who are not catholic yet who are for eg. Protestant, has not God sent them the Holy Spirit to bring them to him and his Church.
Either God sends people help or not, if he does then theoretically speaking if we listen to that help then we must come to the Father, if we come to the Father and it is not in the Catholic faith/Church then the CAtholic Church/faith is then not required for salvation.
H
hlgomez
Guest
To everyone:
I think it’s time for us to know that there is one Greek Orthodox mystic in the name of Vassula Ryden who has been receiving messages from the Lord. I’ve read in one of her books entitled “True Life in God” about the “Two Lungs” of the Church. Jesus was telling her about the other lung as the Orthodox Churches separated from Rome.
I urged everyone here to read her messages. They can be found at www.tlig.org and it’s a very interesting site. The messages that she receives are messages about unity of all Christians. I view her messages as purely Catholic, and doesn’t go against Church’s doctrines. Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been doing investigation about these messages and hasn’t been concluded yet, Cardinal Ratzinger has allowed us Catholics to read the messages with caution and with the mind of the Church.
Pio
I think it’s time for us to know that there is one Greek Orthodox mystic in the name of Vassula Ryden who has been receiving messages from the Lord. I’ve read in one of her books entitled “True Life in God” about the “Two Lungs” of the Church. Jesus was telling her about the other lung as the Orthodox Churches separated from Rome.
I urged everyone here to read her messages. They can be found at www.tlig.org and it’s a very interesting site. The messages that she receives are messages about unity of all Christians. I view her messages as purely Catholic, and doesn’t go against Church’s doctrines. Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been doing investigation about these messages and hasn’t been concluded yet, Cardinal Ratzinger has allowed us Catholics to read the messages with caution and with the mind of the Church.
Pio
R
rfk
Guest
(This will be a two-parter)
Now, I am not a “professional apologist”, and I have seen incredibly technical and detailed explanations argued over the issue of justification. I am not capable of arguing the case at that level, so I hope you will have charity enough to understand the basic point I am trying to make instead of trying to “look for the loopholes” and try to pick everything apart.
Tim Hayes:
First, your position taken to its logical conclusion says that no one goes to Hell. After all, you say:
Tim Hayes:
Now, I am not a “professional apologist”, and I have seen incredibly technical and detailed explanations argued over the issue of justification. I am not capable of arguing the case at that level, so I hope you will have charity enough to understand the basic point I am trying to make instead of trying to “look for the loopholes” and try to pick everything apart.
Tim Hayes:
Tim Hayes:
Tim, thank you for the thought-provoking response. I do not agree with you, and I do not believe your reply correctly reflects Church teachings. I hope I am able to adequately describe why.
First, your position taken to its logical conclusion says that no one goes to Hell. After all, you say:
Tim Hayes:
Tim Hayes:
Yet Church teaches a different process of salvation, one that includes the dignity of human free will in the equation. The key difference between a Catholic who has left the faith and a non-Catholic who has never been given the gift of faith is Baptism. After all, the Catechism teaches:
However, the Church teaches that once we have been given the gift of justification in Baptism, because we have free will, we also have a responsibility in this process:
R
rfk
Guest
After all, the Church recognizes that we can lose, and often lose, our justification:
Sin is a progessive illness. It led me straight out of the Church and to the loss of faith in any God whatsoever.
There is no doubt in my mind that had I died while I was outside the Church, I would have gone to hell.
So that is the major difference I see between the two cases. In the case of the Catholic who leaves the Church, it is often due to their free choice to fall into unrepented sin, leading to loss of faith. There is a valid distinction between one who has never been given the gift of faith versus the one who chooses to reject it.
Sin darkens the soul and damages our relationship with God:
It ultimately has the effect of leading the sinner to the loss of their faith:
Speaking as a “revert” who was drawn back into the Church, I can clearly see how I lost my own faith. I had a strong childhood faith. When I was roughly 13 or 14, my “sex education” consisted of being handed a book which asserted although the Church condemned it, that masturbation was normal, acceptable, and performed by 99% of men. I didn’t even know what masturbation was, but it took little time to find out. That quickly led to other sexual behavior. Sex caused my first major rejection of Church teachings. From there, it led to teenage drinking. From there to drugs. It was no coincidence that I do not recall ever going to confession after my first confession, and it was no coincidence that I quit going to Mass as soon as I left home and reached college.
Sin is a progessive illness. It led me straight out of the Church and to the loss of faith in any God whatsoever.
There is no doubt in my mind that had I died while I was outside the Church, I would have gone to hell.
So that is the major difference I see between the two cases. In the case of the Catholic who leaves the Church, it is often due to their free choice to fall into unrepented sin, leading to loss of faith. There is a valid distinction between one who has never been given the gift of faith versus the one who chooses to reject it.
C
_Christopher
Guest
Zeo-Here’s my deux centimes about the varioous issues discussed in this thread.
First, re the Pope’s words:
Other have noted this, but I’d like to emphasize it, too: He’s not referring here to today’s Eastern Orthodox Churches. He’s referring to the pre-Schism East. Before the Great Schism, East and West breathed with “both lungs.” This is a statement of historical fact. It has nothing to do with the question of how we regard EOxy today. The pope is merely observing that we used to be united with all our Eastern brethren, and, when we were, they functioned as the Church’s other lung.
(I’m not mentioning Eastern Catholics here only because I don’t want to muddy the waters. Of course, ECs do belong to the Catholic Church, and yes, they are our Other Lung. But they are relatively few in number compared with the Orthodox. Obviously the hoped-for reunion of Catholics and Orthodox would really beef up that Other Lung!)
As far as Unam Sanctam goes: In the light of Vatican II, I see no problem with it. Invincibly ignorant Orthodox (and Protestants for that matter) are “confided to Peter” and “subject to the Roman pontiff” whether they acknowledge it or not. After all, they are partially and imperfectly united to the Catholic Church. If they are imperfectly united to the true Church, then it follows that they are imperfectly united to Peter’s successor.
Non-Catholics who deliberately reject the Catholic Church–without the excuse of invincible ignorance–are in much more of a pickle, methinks. And those who viciously malign and calumniate the Catholic Church–well, all I can say is: pray for them. The Athonite monks who call our Holy father the anti-Christ…those rabidly anti-Catholic priests like Frs. Azkoul and Romanides who lose no opportunity to vilify Catholicism…well, IMHO, they may be in deep doo-doo if they persist in their uncharitable hostility toward Christ’s Church. Of course, only Jesus knows the heart, and only He knows what mitigating factors exist in each case. But I don’t think it’s ever safe to implcabaly oppose and vilify the Church Jesus bought with His precious Blood.
Moreover, I don’t think it’s “unecumenical” to say so. We are judged according to our lights and by the disposition of our hearts. The saintly little Orthodox baba who lives a deeply spiritual life, oblivious to the claims of Rome, is no doubt on the fast track to Heaven. But the rabid anti-Catholic who attacks the Catholic Church is in another boat altogether. (Even in his/her case, though, only Jesus knows what mitigating factors apply…)
Blessings,
ZT
Thank you. I missed the key part about the Orthodox being our other lung only before the schism. Now they are our other lung but they aren’t breathing, so to speak, right?
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
RFK, I apprecaite the response, but there are problems with the reasoning as I see it.
Let us consider the two camps (those who are validly baptised ie, catholics protestants etc and then those who are not validly baptised- pagans, moslems, etc
Let us speak concerning the valid baptism.
Baptism connects us to Christ, Now all sorts of Protestants are baptised validly according to the Catholic Teaching.
Now I can ask you, are they saved in their Protestant faith, if they are saved, then many of the teachings of the Catholic Church which the Church tells us will keep us from Salvation must be wrong. Most protestants as we know don’t believe many of the the things that the Church teaches us are required for salvation.
If the Protestant is saved then we catholics are at a big disadvantage, becasue technically speaking we have a lot more “regulations” that we must follow to achieve salvation.
Essentially those who are baptised are definitively prodded by God to come to him, in other words, the Holy Spirit attemps to work his “magic” upon all Christians and theoretically if the Catholic Church is the true Church the Holy spirit must also be guiding them become catholic in belief/faith .
Ultimately it is up to us to search for God (On this everyone would agree) God will then help all those who earnestly search for him ( On this everyone would agree)
The Catholic Church says it is the true Church/bride of Christ. Knowing the above two points and then accepting the Catholic Church claim can only lead us to the conclusion that God requires everyone to be Catholic in both belief and practice, if this is not the case then the claim by the Catholic church to be the True complete Church is incorrect.
Let us consider the two camps (those who are validly baptised ie, catholics protestants etc and then those who are not validly baptised- pagans, moslems, etc
Let us speak concerning the valid baptism.
Baptism connects us to Christ, Now all sorts of Protestants are baptised validly according to the Catholic Teaching.
Now I can ask you, are they saved in their Protestant faith, if they are saved, then many of the teachings of the Catholic Church which the Church tells us will keep us from Salvation must be wrong. Most protestants as we know don’t believe many of the the things that the Church teaches us are required for salvation.
If the Protestant is saved then we catholics are at a big disadvantage, becasue technically speaking we have a lot more “regulations” that we must follow to achieve salvation.
Essentially those who are baptised are definitively prodded by God to come to him, in other words, the Holy Spirit attemps to work his “magic” upon all Christians and theoretically if the Catholic Church is the true Church the Holy spirit must also be guiding them become catholic in belief/faith .
Ultimately it is up to us to search for God (On this everyone would agree) God will then help all those who earnestly search for him ( On this everyone would agree)
The Catholic Church says it is the true Church/bride of Christ. Knowing the above two points and then accepting the Catholic Church claim can only lead us to the conclusion that God requires everyone to be Catholic in both belief and practice, if this is not the case then the claim by the Catholic church to be the True complete Church is incorrect.
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
_Christopher_:
Rather than contradicting the infallible dogmas defined in Unam Sanctam, the Pope’s analogy confirms them. Those parts of the body which are not connected to the head (i.e. Christ and His vicar) cannot function on their own and will surely die. We can live without that diseased chunk of lung (albeit not nearly as well), but they cannot live without the rest of the body at all. That is precisely why we should be working to resolve the schism and why the Eastern Orthodox (and, indeed, all heretics and schismatics) need to return to the unity of the Catholic Church.
Exactly. When the Holy Father writes that the Church must breathe with both lungs, the clear implication is that She is not breathing with full lung capacity right now. Rather, a sizable chunk of the eastern “lung” is collapsed. It is in in a sort of intermediate state right now, like a partially severed finger - it can be fully restored to complete connection (and live) or it can be cleanly cut off (and die).
Rather than contradicting the infallible dogmas defined in Unam Sanctam, the Pope’s analogy confirms them. Those parts of the body which are not connected to the head (i.e. Christ and His vicar) cannot function on their own and will surely die. We can live without that diseased chunk of lung (albeit not nearly as well), but they cannot live without the rest of the body at all. That is precisely why we should be working to resolve the schism and why the Eastern Orthodox (and, indeed, all heretics and schismatics) need to return to the unity of the Catholic Church.
- Status