Christian Unity RevisitedVision <strong>of</strong> Christian Unity Continued from page 2725) Therefore, achieving the reunion<strong>of</strong> the Christian Church requires dedicated,humble, sacrificial effort on thepart <strong>of</strong> all Christians, who should feelthe pain <strong>of</strong> separation and who sufferfrom, as well as sometimes contributeto, its sinfulness. 33 However, theChurch <strong>of</strong> Rome, since it is the head <strong>of</strong>the Churches, bears special responsibilityfor healing schism and restoringunity. This is its God-given mandate;this is the proper exercise <strong>of</strong> its primacy.34 Fulfilling this role will requiremajor changes in Roman self-understanding,a process begun at Vatican II,accompanied by fundamental changesin Roman dealings with otherChristians, for “every attempt at unitycentered in a pyramidal Church, builtaround an absolute juridical authority,and founded on submission to thePope, instead <strong>of</strong> on co-responsibilitywith the older brother who is in Rome,would be doomed to failure.” 35However we may respond to thisvision <strong>of</strong> Church unity – and as an idealit has great appeal – our task here is todiscover in it resources for fulfilling theecumenical vocation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Melkite</strong>Greek Catholic Church, if we can. Letus begin, as we must, by flatly calling ita fantasy that ignores most <strong>of</strong> the secularand ecclesiastical history <strong>of</strong> theChristian age. Yes, the Churches shouldre-unite on the basis <strong>of</strong> the commonfaith <strong>of</strong> the first millennium, shouldaccept legitimate diversity in worshipand doctrine and discipline, and shouldgovern themselves synodally under thebenign primacy <strong>of</strong> the Bishop <strong>of</strong> Rome,first among equals, presiding in theservice <strong>of</strong> charity. But at this time, andfor the foreseeable future, such reunionseems at best highly improbable.Nationalism, pluralism, colonialism,imperialism, and dogmatization <strong>of</strong> localcustoms and theological opinions contributeto the unlikelihood <strong>of</strong> reunion onthese terms, as do centuries <strong>of</strong> carefullynurtured misunderstandings and evenenmities. If the Churches truly hope oneday to achieve reunion, they must strivediligently to resolve these misunderstandingsand to heal these enmities, notsimply at the level <strong>of</strong> international theologicaldialogue, not even at the level <strong>of</strong>the hierarchy or <strong>of</strong> clerical formation,but at every level <strong>of</strong> church life.Agreement on theology by theologianshas no meaning until the parishionersin church on Sunday can affirm itand apply it in their daily dealings withother Christians. As long as Catholicsdefine themselves essentially as being“under the Pope,” and as long asOrthodox define themselves essentiallyas not being “under the Pope,” bothsides ignorant not only <strong>of</strong> others’ faithbut <strong>of</strong> their own, theological dialoguewill remain so much wasted breath andreunion will remain a beautiful fantasy.What, then, can <strong>Melkite</strong>s learn fromArchbishop Elias’ vision? They can, andshould, recognize its basic validity – itexpresses our authentic understanding <strong>of</strong>the Church. It should be taught and nurturedin church schools, in homilies, inadult education classes, in regional andnational clergy-laity conventions, indeacon training programs, in seminarycurricula, in continuing education <strong>of</strong>clergy, in the Patriarchal Synod. Itshould become intimately and integrallypart <strong>of</strong> the meaning <strong>of</strong> “<strong>Melkite</strong>.”As this happens, we must also shareour conviction that this vision authenticallypoints the way to human achievement<strong>of</strong> God’s will that His peopleshould be one with Him. Such sharingwill involve more than words – thoughwords, written in church bulletins, pastoralletters, episcopal statements, ecumenicaldocuments, educational materials,popular magazines, and scholarlyjournals, will carry great weight.Such sharing will involve actingaccording to our belief – individuals,families, parishes, dioceses, the entirepatriarchate must seek cooperationwith fellow Christians, repudiate inauthenticforms <strong>of</strong> worship and teachingand governance, and do whateverexpresses our authentic vision: ordainmarried men, expunge latinizations,elect our own bishops, restore truemonasticism, and adapt our heritage <strong>of</strong>Holy Tradition to the demands <strong>of</strong> life inthe secular, pluralistic, technological,God-hungry world <strong>of</strong> the 21st century.Often people contribute to makingthemselves invalids. They completelyaccept limitations placed upon them bycircumstances or accidents, even furtherhandicapping themselves by not daringto try actions that will challenge thembut will not defeat them. Such peoplemake themselves victims. They callthemselves realistic. In effect, they denyGod’s will and power. They defy God toheal them, without making any attemptto cooperate in their own healing.Other people make every effort toovercome their handicaps or limitations.They constantly strive to reachfarther or to walk longer or to standlonger by themselves. Such peoplemake themselves victors. Others callthem idealistic, but they too call themselvesrealistic. Consciously or not,they acknowledge God’s healing powerand His willingness to cooperate withus when we try to cooperate with Him.<strong>Melkite</strong>s (and, indeed, all Christians)must stop acting like invalids, victims<strong>of</strong> circumstances and dependent onwhat others do to or for us. We cannotbe like the paralytic, lying by the poolfor 38 years waiting for someone to puthim in the water. We must be likeZacchaeus, willing to climb up a tree –perhaps even to go out on a limb – toovercome our limitations. The Lordwill recognize us, reward our efforts,and bring salvation to our house. †Father James K. Graham is the pastor <strong>of</strong> St.Elias the Prophet <strong>Melkite</strong> Church, San Jose, CA.1 Archbishop Elias Zoghby, A Voice from theByzantine East, trans. R. Bernard (West <strong>Newton</strong>,MA: Diocese <strong>of</strong> <strong>Newton</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> EducationalServices, 1992; original French edition, 1970).2 Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Tous Schismatiques?(Beirut: Heidelberg Press-Lebanon, 1981). AnEnglish translation is available from theD i o c e s e<strong>of</strong> <strong>Newton</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> Educational Services.Citations in this essay are based on that translation,revised by James K. Graham. Page numbe r srefer to the French edition.3 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 39.4 Zoghby, Voice, p. 71.5 Zoghby, Voice, p. 56.6 Zoghby, Voice, p. 57.7 Zoghby, Voice, p. 69.8 Zoghby, Voice, p. 70.9 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 51.10 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 51.11 Zoghby, Voice, p. 75.12 Zoghby, Voice, p. 74.13 Zoghby, Voice, p. 110.14 Zoghby, Voice, pp. 110-111.15 Zoghby, Voice, p. 111.16 Zoghby, Voice, pp. 144-145.17 Zoghby, Voice, p. 83.18 Zoghby, Voice, p. 104.19 Zoghby, Voice, p. 118.20 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 47.21 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 59.22 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 47.23 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 48.24 Zoghby, Voice, pp. 56-57.25 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 47.26 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 109.27 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 17.28 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 29.29 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 14.30 Zoghby, Schismatiques, p. 63.31 Zoghby, Voice, p. 86.32 Zoghby, Voice, p. 104.28 SOPHIA • Winter 2008
Winter 2008 • SOPHIA 29