Finding myself Jealous of the Orthodox

[Colabomb]

Our Roman Catholic Brother will Treat our Orthodox Brothers as Brothers.

However we are cast aside as redheaded step children, the second class Christians who are saved by a technicality whereby we grab the coattails of the Pope without realizing it.

The Irony is we reject some of the same problems with Rome, mainly Papal doctrines.

I see where Catholics reach out to the Orthodox Bretheren and give a rally cry of Fighting for Truth.

I am hurt that I must fight to justify myself before my bretheren. It depresses me to a point that with the Right hand, the Pope draws in the Orthodox while with the Left he backhands us.

They are the left lung of the Church, and we are the intestines.

It actually grabs me in the chest.

[higgs2]

Our Roman Catholic Brother will Treat our Orthodox Brothers as Brothers.

However we are cast aside as redheaded step children, the second class Christians who are saved by a technicality whereby we grab the coattails of the Pope without realizing it.

The Irony is we reject some of the same problems with Rome, mainly Papal doctrines.

I see where Catholics reach out to the Orthodox Bretheren and give a rally cry of Fighting for Truth.

I am hurt that I must fight to justify myself before my bretheren. It depresses me to a point that with the Right hand, the Pope draws in the Orthodox while with the Left he backhands us.

They are the left lung of the Church, and we are the intestines.

It actually grabs me in the chest.
I'm sorry this hurts you so.

But really, it's only on the internet that this is much of an issue. The RC's who live down the street from you like you just fine.

[cenimo]

Just my $.02 here, but far too many of us put the wrong adjective first...

Are we Anglicans / Orthodox / Roman Catholics, whatever who happen to be Christians or Christans who happen to be Anglican / Orthodox / Roman Catholic, whatever?

[Colabomb]

Unfortunately Higgs, that is not so. It is more prevalent on the Internet, but not exclusive to it.

Cenimo, I agree with your basic concept, (see my Icon) but these distinctions do exist.

[Torah613]

And most Orthodox could care less what Rome thinks--unless, in their words, "Rome rejects its heresies and becomes Catholic/Orthodox once again."

Really what does it matter what the pope thinks? Do we not reject his authority to determine who is and who is not Christian? Shouldn't it matter what Christ thinks of us? isn't that the point?

Joe Zollars

[Colabomb]

Well, considering Anglicanism isn't exactly well known for holding on to the Traditions of the Apostles and the Orthodox are, are you really surprised? I mean, Women Priests, soon to be Women Bishops, and rampant liberalism in Morality are only a few examples of where the Anglican Church has left behind the teachings of the Apostles.

Peace,

Windlord.
I reject all the things you have mentioned. As has the Majority of Anglicanism. It is only a few groups in north America that has done these things.

[Colabomb]

Well, considering Anglicanism isn't exactly well known for holding on to the Traditions of the Apostles and the Orthodox are, are you really surprised? I mean, Women Priests, soon to be Women Bishops, and rampant liberalism in Morality are only a few examples of where the Anglican Church has left behind the teachings of the Apostles.

Peace,

Windlord.
And it bothers me that we are criticized for rejecting papal claims, but you guys are all buddy buddy with the Orthodox who do the same.

[Ebor]

I have read somethings that say that the "other lung" that the late John Paul II was referring to was "Eastern Catholic/Byzantine Catholic" not to the EO themselves. Others disagree on that point.

Ebor

[Torah613]

the buddy buddy part is only on one side. Just ask his holiness Alexy II.

(although his all holiness Bartolimais might have a different story--there still is no full communion, and until numerous things are changed that is theologically impossible from an Orthodox standpoint).

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Ebor, I think that position makes much more sense from Rome's theological standpoint--not to mention JPII wouldn't have been rush to take undue liberties with the Orthodox. The Orthodox certainly don't kiss on the first date.;)

Joe Zollars

[higgs2]

And most Orthodox could care less what Rome thinks--unless, in their words, "Rome rejects its heresies and becomes Catholic/Orthodox once again."

Really what does it matter what the pope thinks? Do we not reject his authority to determine who is and who is not Christian? Shouldn't it matter what Christ thinks of us? isn't that the point?

Joe Zollars
Really, most Anglicans (to my knowledge) could care less about this either LOL!

I do know that the Orthodox and the RC's are welcome to take communion in any ANglican church any time.

[higgs2]

Well, considering Anglicanism isn't exactly well known for holding on to the Traditions of the Apostles and the Orthodox are, are you really surprised? I mean, Women Priests, soon to be Women Bishops, and rampant liberalism in Morality are only a few examples of where the Anglican Church has left behind the teachings of the Apostles.

Peace,

Windlord.
Anaglicans are exemplifying the teachings of the Apostles.

[higgs2]

Really, most Anglicans (to my knowledge) could care less about this either LOL!

I do know that the Orthodox and the RC's are welcome to take communion in any ANglican church any time.

:doh: ugh! I didn't mean for this to sound so rude. :sorry:

[gitlance]

Just as a clarification... the Catholic Church does not see the Eastern Orthodox as the "left lung" or "other lung" of the Church. The "other lung" to which JPII referred are the Eastern Catholics in Communion with the Holy See. This is a frequent misunderstanding.

[masuwerte]

They are the left lung of the Church, and we are the intestines.


With this metaphor in mind, a person can do quite well with only one lung, but remove his intestines...

Really, there's no need to worry about what Roman Catholics think of us.

[Colabomb]

With this metaphor in mind, a person can do quite well with only one lung, but remove his intestines...

Really, there's no need to worry about what Roman Catholics think of us.
It is not that I am afraid, but that I am saddened that my brothers think of me as a technicality.

[Colabomb]

BTW, I wanted to clarify that I have no ill will toward the orthodox on this post.

The Title can be misleading.

[Colabomb]

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."


The RCC will unite with the Orthodox in the Sacrament, even though they reject the Papacy.

[Colabomb]

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."


They may or may not be the "Other Lung"

But they are given a special seat.

(Again it is not the Orthodox that frustrate me. But the Roman Catholics and the frustrating double standard.)

[SeenAndUnseen]

I reject all the things you have mentioned. As has the Majority of Anglicanism. It is only a few groups in north America that has done these things.

But this is exactly what the trouble is; in Anglicanism, there is no body with the authority to discipline or correct "few groups" from doing whatever they please. There is no guidance or sound doctrine to prevent virtually anything at all from going on. If a small group of Anglicans decide to start letting men marry their pets, the worst that will happen is some other Anglican will say he doesn't agree, yet according to Anglicans, both are equally following some interpretive "tradition" and using "reason" and "scripture" to work it out.

Rome can wish for the Anglican church to repent and return, but cannot make it happen. Roman Catholics believe there is a very good reason for papal primacy and infallibility -- and the wild and aimless galavanting of Anglicans illustrates it. Somewhere, there must be someone with the authority to say precisely what things really do mean. Someone must define the boundaries of a common faith in order for it to be recognizeable as common.

[RadixLecti]

Well, considering Anglicanism isn't exactly well known for holding on to the Traditions of the Apostles and the Orthodox are, are you really surprised? I mean, Women Priests, soon to be Women Bishops, and rampant liberalism in Morality are only a few examples of where the Anglican Church has left behind the teachings of the Apostles.

Peace,

Windlord.

you may be on to something there.

[higgs2]

But this is exactly what the trouble is; in Anglicanism, there is no body with the authority to discipline or correct "few groups" from doing whatever they please. There is no guidance or sound doctrine to prevent virtually anything at all from going on. If a small group of Anglicans decide to start letting men marry their pets, the worst that will happen is some other Anglican will say he doesn't agree, yet according to Anglicans, both are equally following some interpretive "tradition" and using "reason" and "scripture" to work it out.

Rome can wish for the Anglican church to repent and return, but cannot make it happen. Roman Catholics believe there is a very good reason for papal primacy and infallibility -- and the wild and aimless galavanting of Anglicans illustrates it. Somewhere, there must be someone with the authority to say precisely what things really do mean. Someone must define the boundaries of a common faith in order for it to be recognizeable as common.

Oh goodness. Maybe it can also be said that some Anglicans may wish for Rome to repent and return ^_^

I don't get why it's a big deal. There are Anglicans. THere are RC's. And lots of other choices. God is so big, there will never be enough ways to describe God, and no one will get it exactly right. In this lifetime. IMHO.

[Aymn27]

But this is exactly what the trouble is; in Anglicanism, there is no body with the authority to discipline or correct "few groups" from doing whatever they please. There is no guidance or sound doctrine to prevent virtually anything at all from going on. If a small group of Anglicans decide to start letting men marry their pets, the worst that will happen is some other Anglican will say he doesn't agree, yet according to Anglicans, both are equally following some interpretive "tradition" and using "reason" and "scripture" to work it out.

Rome can wish for the Anglican church to repent and return, but cannot make it happen. Roman Catholics believe there is a very good reason for papal primacy and infallibility -- and the wild and aimless galavanting of Anglicans illustrates it. Somewhere, there must be someone with the authority to say precisely what things really do mean. Someone must define the boundaries of a common faith in order for it to be recognizeable as common.
Oh my...wake up from your fantasy...
SSPX, Catholics for a Free Choice, Liberation Theology, Feminist Theology, Rampant Homosexualism between clergy, Molestation Rates at 2x the normal rate for the male population, 80% of Catholics use ABC, over 70% do not believe in transubstantiation...need I go on?

[masuwerte]

Actually, I think she has a point, at least from her perspective. Although perhaps the galavanting is not quite as wild or aimless as she might suppose.

[Ebor]

Ebor, I think that position makes much more sense from Rome's theological standpoint--not to mention JPII wouldn't have been rush to take undue liberties with the Orthodox. The Orthodox certainly don't kiss on the first date.;)

Joe Zollars

:D Love it!

Ebor

[Aymn27]

Actually, I think she has a point, at least from her perspective. Although perhaps the galavanting is not quite as wild or aimless as she might suppose.
I have some knowledge of the world of Cathoicism - being a former one - they have enough of their own mavericks I promise you - Matthew Fox, Elizabeth Schoeler Fiorenza (sp?), ACT, etc...just because they tout infallibility doesn't mean the sheep aren't doing all sorta wild stuff on their own..it just means their master gets a little more stressed..lol

[Tomoz]

I'm sorry you feel that way cola. I have to agree with cenimo though.
Why do we need the approval of a man? God well and truly draws us all fully in to Himself. Isn't that all that matters at the end of it all?

[RadixLecti]

I'm sorry you feel that way cola. I have to agree with cenimo though.
Why do we need the approval of a man? God well and truly draws us all fully in to Himself. Isn't that all that matters at the end of it all?

I agree. No one church bureaucracy "owns" God. Cola I share your frustrations and wish that the church could be more unified. At times like this I remind myself of the person of Jesus and what faith in Christ really looks like. When I do that, everything else pales in comparison. Faith in Christ is what the gates of Hell will never prevail against.

[DeoJuvante]

Just my $.02 here, but far too many of us put the wrong adjective first...

Are we Anglicans / Orthodox / Roman Catholics, whatever who happen to be Christians or Christans who happen to be Anglican / Orthodox / Roman Catholic, whatever?

Personally, I am an Anglican and therefore a follower of Christ. I have yet to be convinced that that makes me a Christian.

[Tetzel]

Our Roman Catholic Brother will Treat our Orthodox Brothers as Brothers.

However we are cast aside as redheaded step children, the second class Christians who are saved by a technicality whereby we grab the coattails of the Pope without realizing it.

The Irony is we reject some of the same problems with Rome, mainly Papal doctrines.

I see where Catholics reach out to the Orthodox Bretheren and give a rally cry of Fighting for Truth.

I am hurt that I must fight to justify myself before my bretheren. It depresses me to a point that with the Right hand, the Pope draws in the Orthodox while with the Left he backhands us.

They are the left lung of the Church, and we are the intestines.

It actually grabs me in the chest.

No unity without reformation.

What saddens me is those who would rather be approved of by the EOC and RCC than stay in truth.

[Tetzel]

And it bothers me that we are criticized for rejecting papal claims, but you guys are all buddy buddy with the Orthodox who do the same.

That's because they need to be all buddy buddy. That two groups have followed Holy Tradition and ended up separated is an embarassment to them. The acting buddy buddy is a way of "Not fighting in front of the kids" (i.e protestants)

[Tetzel]

Just as a clarification... the Catholic Church does not see the Eastern Orthodox as the "left lung" or "other lung" of the Church. The "other lung" to which JPII referred are the Eastern Catholics in Communion with the Holy See. This is a frequent misunderstanding.

Thanks for the update. I've seen that misunderstanding trotted around a lot here.

[higgs2]

Personally, I am an Anglican and therefore a follower of Christ. I have yet to be convinced that that makes me a Christian.
tell me more. (As my friend glen says :))

[NewToLife]

That's because they need to be all buddy buddy. That two groups have followed Holy Tradition and ended up separated is an embarassment to them. The acting buddy buddy is a way of "Not fighting in front of the kids" (i.e protestants)


Just to put an Orthodox point of view here, I'm certainly not embarassed by Roman Catholicism any more than I am embarassed by any other group outside of Orthodoxy.

[Colabomb]

But this is exactly what the trouble is; in Anglicanism, there is no body with the authority to discipline or correct "few groups" from doing whatever they please. There is no guidance or sound doctrine to prevent virtually anything at all from going on. If a small group of Anglicans decide to start letting men marry their pets, the worst that will happen is some other Anglican will say he doesn't agree, yet according to Anglicans, both are equally following some interpretive "tradition" and using "reason" and "scripture" to work it out.

Rome can wish for the Anglican church to repent and return, but cannot make it happen. Roman Catholics believe there is a very good reason for papal primacy and infallibility -- and the wild and aimless galavanting of Anglicans illustrates it. Somewhere, there must be someone with the authority to say precisely what things really do mean. Someone must define the boundaries of a common faith in order for it to be recognizeable as common.
Anglican Churches can break communion with other Anglican churches. Something that will happen if ECUSA does not get its act together.

[Colabomb]

Clarification.

I am not in fear of my own Salvation because Rome does not accept me. As many of you know, I have my problems with Rome.

My Salvation is in the Pierced Hands of Christ.

I don't plan to run off to another body.

I am just frustrated.

[AngCath]

I am just frustrated.

Churches are good at that...

[IowaLutheran]

Just as a clarification... the Catholic Church does not see the Eastern Orthodox as the "left lung" or "other lung" of the Church. The "other lung" to which JPII referred are the Eastern Catholics in Communion with the Holy See. This is a frequent misunderstanding.

Your post piqued my curiosity, so I read various Vatican documents on their website. At times, it does seem like Pope John Paul II was referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion as the eastern lung of the Church, but at other times, he seems to clearly be stating that the separate Eastern churches are the other lung, or at the very least, part of the other lung.

From Ecclesia in America:

"The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.(47) Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly.(48)"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html

From Ut Unum Sint:

"Resuming contacts
52. With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby "there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church" 84 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2C) the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.

* * * *

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2D) on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2E) addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'."

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM

The "lungs" comments by Pope John Paul II were made in the context of discussion of Rome's relationship with the separated Eastern churches. If he believed the Church were breathing fully with both lungs now, he would not have stated that for the Church to breathe with both lungs, there needs to be a synergy between Rome and the separated Eastern churches. The use of the word ""needs" implies a condition that does not currently exist.

[gtsecc]

Really, most Anglicans (to my knowledge) could care less about this either LOL!
Not my experience in differnt states and churches.
Most Anglicans I know deliberately think about working towards reunion with the RCC and EO.

[gtsecc]

I don't get why it's a big deal. There are Anglicans. THere are RC's. And lots of other choices.

Choice is the very definition of heresy.

Etymology
The word "heresy" comes from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) αιρεσις, hairesis (from αιρεομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "thinking") and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

[Colabomb]

Your post piqued my curiosity, so I read various Vatican documents on their website. At times, it does seem like Pope John Paul II was referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion as the eastern lung of the Church, but at other times, he seems to clearly be stating that the separate Eastern churches are the other lung, or at the very least, part of the other lung.

From Ecclesia in America:

"The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.(47) Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly.(48)"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html

From Ut Unum Sint:

"Resuming contacts
52. With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby "there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church" 84 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2C) the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.

* * * *

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2D) on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2E) addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'."

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM

The "lungs" comments by Pope John Paul II were made in the context of discussion of Rome's relationship with the separated Eastern churches. If he believed the Church were breathing fully with both lungs now, he would not have stated that for the Church to breathe with both lungs, there needs to be a synergy between Rome and the separated Eastern churches. The use of the word ""needs" implies a condition that does not currently exist.
I thought this was so, but as I was not sure, I did not argue.

[Aymn27]

Your post piqued my curiosity, so I read various Vatican documents on their website. At times, it does seem like Pope John Paul II was referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion as the eastern lung of the Church, but at other times, he seems to clearly be stating that the separate Eastern churches are the other lung, or at the very least, part of the other lung.

From Ecclesia in America:

"The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.(47) Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly.(48)"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html

From Ut Unum Sint:

"Resuming contacts
52. With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby "there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Church" 84 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2C) the remembrance of the excommunications which nine hundred years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople. That ecclesial event, so filled with ecumenical commitment, took place during the last days of the Council, on 7 December 1965. The Council thus ended with a solemn act which was at once a healing of historical memories, a mutual forgiveness, and a firm commitment to strive for communion.

* * * *

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2D) on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM#$2E) addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'."

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PI.HTM

The "lungs" comments by Pope John Paul II were made in the context of discussion of Rome's relationship with the separated Eastern churches. If he believed the Church were breathing fully with both lungs now, he would not have stated that for the Church to breathe with both lungs, there needs to be a synergy between Rome and the separated Eastern churches. The use of the word ""needs" implies a condition that does not currently exist.
Thank YOU!! I knew this was incorrect and have seen the ummm guys..at OBOB say that over and over - but I never had the energy (or the care) to look it up - but am SO glad you did!! I knew they were wrong....

[gtsecc]

This got bumped to the preceeeding page, so I am reposting it:
Choice is the very definition of heresy.

Etymology
The word "heresy" comes from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) αιρεσις, hairesis (from αιρεομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus) in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "thinking") and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

[ContraMundum]

Just ignore them. It works for me. Be friends with the friendly ones, and ignore the religious spirits.

Seriously.

If you are allowing Church politics to cause you grief, you're in the wrong religion.

Focus everything you have on Jesus Christ. Nothing less will suffice. When we worry about what our brother's heirarchy thinks of us then we've lost sight of our relationship with the Lord.

Being "in the church" or "doctrinally correct" is God's business.

We are to learn to live right in this life, bearing our crosses and repenting of our sins. Human juristictions, pet doctrines and practices, institutions and "isms" are not the objects we are called to focus on.

Beware the people that talk about "the Church" more than they talk about their own walks and the Lord Jesus.

Pursue holiness, the higher Christian life and humility before God and you won't be jealous of any church organisation. It will all fade into insignificance in the glorious light of Our Lord.

[ContraMundum]

No unity without reformation.

What saddens me is those who would rather be approved of by the EOC and RCC than stay in truth.

As usual...

AMEN! :amen:

[IowaLutheran]

Just ignore them. It works for me. Be friends with the friendly ones, and ignore the religious spirits.

Seriously.

If you are allowing Church politics to cause you grief, you're in the wrong religion.

Focus everything you have on Jesus Christ. Nothing less will suffice. When we worry about what our brother's heirarchy thinks of us then we've lost sight of our relationship with the Lord.

Being "in the church" or "doctrinally correct" is God's business.

We are to learn to live right in this life, bearing our crosses and repenting of our sins. Human juristictions, pet doctrines and practices, institutions and "isms" are not the objects we are called to focus on.

Beware the people that talk about "the Church" more than they talk about their own walks and the Lord Jesus.

Pursue holiness, the higher Christian life and humility before God and you won't be jealous of any church organisation. It will all fade into insignificance in the glorious light of Our Lord.

Sometimes I wonder to myself - "Have I condemned my wife to hell because she converted to Lutheranism from Catholicism because of me, since, as a former RC, she is not covered by the 'invincible ignorance' that I have as a cradle Lutheran?"

Then I read a post like yours and I come back to sanity.

[Colabomb]

Just ignore them. It works for me. Be friends with the friendly ones, and ignore the religious spirits.

Seriously.

If you are allowing Church politics to cause you grief, you're in the wrong religion.

Focus everything you have on Jesus Christ. Nothing less will suffice. When we worry about what our brother's heirarchy thinks of us then we've lost sight of our relationship with the Lord.

Being "in the church" or "doctrinally correct" is God's business.

We are to learn to live right in this life, bearing our crosses and repenting of our sins. Human juristictions, pet doctrines and practices, institutions and "isms" are not the objects we are called to focus on.

Beware the people that talk about "the Church" more than they talk about their own walks and the Lord Jesus.

Pursue holiness, the higher Christian life and humility before God and you won't be jealous of any church organisation. It will all fade into insignificance in the glorious light of Our Lord.
I think I shall take that advice.

[Aymn27]

Sometimes I wonder to myself - "Have I condemned my wife to hell because she converted to Lutheranism from Catholicism because of me, since, as a former RC, she is not covered by the 'invincible ignorance' that I have as a cradle Lutheran?"

Then I read a post like yours and I come back to sanity.
oh my rofl...I'm not covered by that either..I must tell ya - it is quite a leap of faith to leave the "borg" mentality...hopefully the fear of damnation struggle goes away with time...

[SirTimothy]

Focus everything you have on Jesus Christ. Nothing less will suffice.

Amen, Amen, Amen!

[higgs2]

Cola, I am wondering why this is an issue for you. I had thought you were a member of the RE church? And weren't you Lutheran for a while? I never had the impression that you had a longing for Rome. :)

[Torah613]

Not my experience in differnt states and churches.
Most Anglicans I know deliberately think about working towards reunion with the RCC and EO.

I shudder at the very thought. There are very real reasons I left those groups. If that were to happen, what would I be forced to do then? Go Baptist? Maybe some continuing Anglican churches would come out of it who would not be in union.

What is the big deal. We are already one in Christ, as we are with all Christians. The Church Catholic is not just the Anglican, Orthodox, and RC churches but all people who are Christians.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Just ignore them. It works for me. Be friends with the friendly ones, and ignore the religious spirits.

Seriously.

If you are allowing Church politics to cause you grief, you're in the wrong religion.

Focus everything you have on Jesus Christ. Nothing less will suffice. When we worry about what our brother's heirarchy thinks of us then we've lost sight of our relationship with the Lord.

Being "in the church" or "doctrinally correct" is God's business.

We are to learn to live right in this life, bearing our crosses and repenting of our sins. Human juristictions, pet doctrines and practices, institutions and "isms" are not the objects we are called to focus on.

Beware the people that talk about "the Church" more than they talk about their own walks and the Lord Jesus.

Pursue holiness, the higher Christian life and humility before God and you won't be jealous of any church organisation. It will all fade into insignificance in the glorious light of Our Lord.

Dang rep nazi's won't let me rep contra here either--but my rep points are there in spirit....

Joe Zollars

[karen freeinchristman]

I shudder at the very thought. There are very real reasons I left those groups. If that were to happen, what would I be forced to do then? Go Baptist? Maybe some continuing Anglican churches would come out of it who would not be in union.

What is the big deal. We are already one in Christ, as we are with all Christians. The Church Catholic is not just the Anglican, Orthodox, and RC churches but all people who are Christians.

Joe Zollars

"You must spread some rep around before giving it to Joseph again"

[Torah613]

As a former RC who became Orthodox--i would be viewed as a Schismatic who would be automatically condemned.

So the buddy buddy bit is a sham.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

the rep nazi's are busy tonight. ;)

Joe Zollars

[Simon_Templar]

The church needs unity.

It is frustrating that all sides are too assured of their own rightness to even get down to real business of talking these issues out.

It is frustrating that the Catholics and Orthodox both think they don't need us to be complete, or to have unity, because they are convinced that they are the true and complete church.

Its frustrating that Anglicans are rushing headlong into more and more aberations from the faith that create new divisions both internally and with the rest of the church.



There are honest questions in things like.. why does Rome recognize eastern orders and not Anglican ones.. As an Anglican this concerns me.. if it were simply a matter of Rome is right and everyone else is wrong.. that would be one thing.. but what is it about us that they are not willing to recognize in that sense.. is there something to it? To be honest, I don't really know. Its something worth considering though.