The "Other Lung"

[Publisher]

I’ve read this several times by both Catholics and Orthodox on this forum…as well as the “other lung” is not Orthodoxy but Eastern Catholicism…so…

"Do Orthodox as a whole share the “two lung” belief? From what I understood…the RCC is not the “other lung” as far as Orthodox were concerned as a whole…I thought Eastern Catholicism was the “other lung” since EC’s shared communion with Rome…

Interesting…though you are not in communion with the Orthodox…you still consider them part of the Body of Christ…which due to schism is divided?

Is this a “universal” view of Catholicism concerning the “other lung”?

I have an idea the Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in “two lung” church in light that both are in schism with one another and are not in communion with each other…which I understood was a very important article of faith.

 

[1ke]

JPII made the comment that Europe must breathe with both her lungs in a greeting to the Ecumenical Patriarch and again in 1991 he said the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are two lungs in the same body. He used this reference many times in Catholic-Orthodox dialog.

Here is an article written by an Orthodox Bishop using JPII’s phrase of the “two lungs”, he does not seem opposed to this analogy. Although others certainly have.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionEurope2.php

 

[SonCatcher]

Expanding on Publisher’s question, in case Eastern Orthodox do not subscribe to the “other lung” description regarding Catholicism:

Would an Eastern Orthodox theologian use similar terms to describe their relationship with Western Orthodox who are in communion with them?

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Expanding on Publisher’s question, in case Eastern Orthodox do not subscribe to the “other lung” description regarding Catholicism:

Would an Eastern Orthodox theologian use similar terms to describe their relationship with Western Orthodox who are in communion with them?

I would think not, because the Western Rite was not resurrected until more modern times. Calling the WR the “other lung” would be an implication that the Church was somehow missing a lung for a number of years (which is inconsistent with traditional Orthodox ecclesiology).

 

[SonCatcher]

I would think not, because the Western Rite was not resurrected until more modern times. Calling the WR the “other lung” would be an implication that the Church was somehow missing a lung for a number of years (which is inconsistent with traditional Orthodox ecclesiology).

One could argue the same with nearly all Eastern Catholic churches (excepting the Maronites).

 

[Hesychios]

I’ve read this several times by both Catholics and Orthodox on this forum…as well as the “other lung” is not Orthodoxy but Eastern Catholicism…so…

"Do Orthodox as a whole share the “two lung” belief? From what I understood…the RCC is not the “other lung” as far as Orthodox were concerned as a whole…I thought Eastern Catholicism was the “other lung” since EC’s shared communion with Rome…

Interesting…though you are not in communion with the Orthodox…you still consider them part of the Body of Christ…which due to schism is divided?

Is this a “universal” view of Catholicism concerning the “other lung”?

I have an idea the Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in “two lung” church in light that both are in schism with one another and are not in communion with each other…which I understood was a very important article of faith.

I personally do not like the ‘other lung’ analogy. Lung implies ‘two’, that is why the term is used, a pair of roughly equal parts.

However “the East” is an artificial construct, actually. East of what?

Some Orthodox would most likely consider themselves the ‘central’ Christians, although we don’t really use such terms.

For most early ‘eastern’ Christians the Greeks would be decidedly western, and from their perspective the Greek Orthodox could realistically be lumped together with the Roman Catholic as the two ‘western’ churches!

I guess it’s all relative.

‘The East’ from a Roman Catholic standpoint is apparently anything and everything east of Rome, which ironically for centuries was itself almost as far east as one could be in the western church, it was practically on the border (comparatively speaking). In fact Rome was the only Apostolic See in the west (a term it continues to employ) because it was easier for the Apostles to reach from the direction they were coming from, the eastern churches are loaded with Apostolic Sees, all the way to India. There is such a variety in Apostolic Christianity that it is unfair to lump them all together.

A more apt analogy would be not two lungs, but five (or four at least, depending on a lot of things). So Rome could be one of five ‘something’, like five fingers on a hand, or something like that.

The following chart gives an interesting perspective through historical liturgical traces, it is from an Eastern Catholic website, and despite some limitations helps convey the point I am trying to make …

http://www.holyfamilyucc.com/images/catholic_rites2.gif

There is much more to this than just liturgical differences, the spirituality of these different traditions is rich and deep and unique. It cannot be adequately described in a graph.

 

[TimothyH]

JPII made the comment that Europe must breathe with both her lungs in a greeting to the Ecumenical Patriarch and again in 1991 he said the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are two lungs in the same body. He used this reference many times in Catholic-Orthodox dialog.

Here is an article written by an Orthodox Bishop using JPII’s phrase of the “two lungs”, he does not seem opposed to this analogy. Although others certainly have.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionEurope2.php

I think he was fond of the “Lung” analogy. He called cloistered nuns and monks, and other consecrated religious who pray constantly “the lungs of Christianity.”

-Tim-

 

[SonCatcher]

However “the East” is an artificial construct, actually. East of what?
…
I guess it’s all relative.

Well said! :clapping:

Indeed, since Christ’s body is all believers, any way of dividing is “artificial.” Though, like good surgeons, our bishops should take due care in reassembling.

‘The East’ from a Roman Catholic standpoint is apparently anything and everything east of Rome, which ironically for centuries was itself almost as far east as one could be in the western church, it was practically on the border (comparatively speaking). In fact Rome was the only Apostolic See in the west (a term it continues to employ) because it was easier for the Apostles to reach from the direction they were coming from, the eastern churches are loaded with Apostolic Sees, all the way to India. There is such a variety in Apostolic Christianity that it is unfair to lump them all together.

A more apt analogy would be not two lungs, but five (or four at least, depending on a lot of things). So Rome could be one of five ‘something’, like five fingers on a hand, or something like that.

Curiously, the lungs are composed of 5 lobes (3 on the right, 2 on the left) so the analogy still works to an extent.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I personally do not like the ‘other lung’ analogy. Lung implies ‘two’, that is why the term is used, a pair of roughly equal parts.

However “the East” is an artificial construct, actually. East of what?

Some Orthodox would most likely consider themselves the ‘central’ Christians, although we don’t really use such terms.

For most early ‘eastern’ Christians the Greeks would be decidedly western, and from their perspective the Greek Orthodox could realistically be lumped together with the Roman Catholic as the two ‘western’ churches!

I guess it’s all relative.

‘The East’ from a Roman Catholic standpoint is apparently anything and everything east of Rome, which ironically for centuries was itself almost as far east as one could be in the western church, it was practically on the border (comparatively speaking). In fact Rome was the only Apostolic See in the west (a term it continues to employ) because it was easier for the Apostles to reach from the direction they were coming from, the eastern churches are loaded with Apostolic Sees, all the way to India. There is such a variety in Apostolic Christianity that it is unfair to lump them all together.

A more apt analogy would be not two lungs, but five (or four at least, depending on a lot of things). So Rome could be one of five ‘something’, like five fingers on a hand, or something like that.

The following chart gives an interesting perspective through historical liturgical traces, it is from an Eastern Catholic website, and despite some limitations helps convey the point I am trying to make …

http://www.holyfamilyucc.com/images/catholic_rites2.gif

There is much more to this than just liturgical differences, the spirituality of these different traditions is rich and deep and unique. It cannot be adequately described in a graph.

Wow, beautiful chart! Yes, the “two lung” analogy is quite inappropriate and I think has (sadly) only served to further confuse many Catholics by conflating all of the churches/rites of the “east” into the Byzantine Church.