what is unity?

I posted this on the thread about Eastern Rite Roman Catholicism:

I have a request... In this thread, could we try to have the entire discussion without referring to the word \"ecumenism\"? It is such a loaded word, and it has so many different meanings. If we avoid this word, we will be forced to be more specific about what we do and don\'t approve of, and that will help with the general communication and flow of discussion here. Thanks. (I know it\'s just wishful thinking to hope that we can REALLY avoid using the \"E\" word... But I had to ask.)

This is one view, there are others.

Here are two quotes from Fr Thomas FitzGerald, Dean of Holy Cross and Executive Secretary and Member of the North American Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue. These are from an article entitled, “The Future of Orthodox-Catholic Relations: Some Orthodox Perspectives” http://www.lmu.edu/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=29620#_edn2 \"We know that this healing process is not easy. Yet, we are also confident that the movement towards full communion in faith and sacrament and witness is an expression in our day of the Gospel message of reconciliation and an echo of the prayer of the Lord that ‘all may be one so that the world may believe’ (John 17:20). As the North American Theological Consultation has said: “ In communion with the Lord, we are called to proclaim in word and deed, here and now, the divine love, which heals, reconciles, and saves. As the Apostle Paul says: \"All this is from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).\" \"The ultimate goal of dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is restoration of full communion. We recognize that this is a gradual process. Just as our alienation took place over the course of time, so also our reconciliation, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is taking place gradually. In order to be faithful to Our Lord, this process must be rooted in the Gospel and nurtured by prayer for unity. It must be fostered by theological dialogue, and expressed in acts of love and mutual forgiveness. As members of “sister Churches” which are responsible for upholding the apostolic faith, we cannot seek the victory of one tradition over another. Rather, we seek the victory of Christ over our divisions, for the sake of the salvation of all. To him be glory together with his eternal Father and his all-holy, good, and life- giving Spirit, now and forever and unto ages of ages. Amen. \"

Fr. Athanasios, thank you for posting that. Do you have any other sources in mind (particularly sources which refer to a Patristic and traditional basis for such a position)? I must say, the comments of Fr. Thomas make me a little uncomfortable. The phrase \"sister Churches\" should not be used in reference to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Constantinople and Moscow are sister Churches. Antioch and Greece. And so forth... To call Rome a \"sister Church\" is to adhere to a notion, common in the 19th century, that there is a broad \"Christian Church\" of which Orthodoxy is a part, or even the \"Mother,\" but not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I understand that the Orthodox who say “sister Church” about Rome are being polite, but I think it sends the wrong message (to both them and to the Orthodox people as a whole). \"We cannot seek the victory of one tradition over another.\" This seems to suggest that both “traditions” are equally valid. This is a common argument. Differences are minimized as being merely different “expressions” or “interpretations.” Unity is seen as we silly humans overcoming our parochialism and particularity in favor of diversity and inclusiveness. Opposition to such a position is exacerbated by the fact that many of the Orthodox who disagree with this sort of unity come across as triumphalistic radicals who proudly proclaim that we are right and others wrong. But it is not wrong to say that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth and that Roman Catholicism, while not entirely wrong, is not the fullness of the truth. “We recognize that this is a gradual process. Just as our alienation took place over the course of time, so also our reconciliation, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is taking place gradually.” I think this speaks to the great difficulty of any sort of “reunion” talks. Is there any precedent in Orthodoxy for the “re-establishment” of unity with a group which separated itself long before? The situation with the non-Chalcedonians is simpler, since the issue hinges around a specific Ecumenical Council. Those Churches are largely unchanged since the split, so attention can be focused on the specific issue which divides us. But with Rome, there is a host of issues. At the heart of it is the fact that Rome has a very different underlying philosophy than we do. As a rule, large people groups do not change their long-held underlying philosophies, but for any REAL union to take place (as opposed to a union like that of Ferrara-Florence), such a change is necessary. I have more thoughts, but I will stop here for now and allow others to comment.

So what should unity look like? Is there any answer besides, \"Let them all be like us\"?

like us?...this is not the answer... the answer for unity in Christ\'s name is to live in the Uncreated Light and act according to our saints\' therapeutic heritage. otherwise the unity will be like a R.U.N. (religious united nation). but this is a theosophic view of \"unity\",a mixture of different beliefs,as practiced by the masons.... it won\'t be far of the truth to say that ths kind of \"unity\" comes from the hell itself...

Coming from a Protestant background, I have always been taught that the unity of the Church will be in the future world - that it can not possibly exist on this side of Paradise. It was the only way to reconcile the embarrassing \'denomination problem\' which (now that I am Orthodox) I see is a cover-up answer for the perpetual delusion that the united Church does not exist on earth. I don\'t know what unity looks like on the large-scale picture of heirachies, jurisdictions, and bishops. I guess I am wired for a more practical \"on my own level\" view of things. And for all I know, perhaps this is the way it\'s supposed to work itself out into the bigger picture. He has shown you, O Man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God?

This depends on who we\'re talking about, of course. The closest parallel I can think of to a possible (legitimate) union with Rome would be the once-hoped-for union with the Anglicans, which never came to be. While the jury seems still to be out on the Western Rite, it does offer a model for how someone from a Western Christian liturgical background might be able to retain the benign externals of their faith when joining the Orthodox Church. Not that I think this will ever happen, but in the event of a union with Rome, I would think they could keep their old Latin Rite mass, their vestments, their music. Of course I mean the more traditional Latin things, not rock masses and clown masses that are around today. There is much that is \"redeemable\" in Roman Catholicism, so one doesn\'t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. They would, however, have to shed much of their theological ideas which are founded upon Augustine and Aquinas (and thus Aristotle). In particular, the Roman Catholic understanding of sin and grace is different and incompatible with the Orthodox understanding. The Orthodox can\'t become more Latin in their ideas; the Latins would have to become more Orthodox. Likewise in their ecclesiology. Right now Orthodox ecclesiology is in a state of crisis because of the now-unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves, but certainly the Roman idea of papal supremacy is not acceptable to the Orthodox. Not all of Roman Catholicism is bad. There is much there that is compatible with Orthodoxy. In other words, a mass Roman Catholic conversion to Orthodoxy would not require a disavowal of their entire religious identity. But it would require a humble acceptance of the Orthodox view on the things that really divide us -- theology and ecclesiology. The Orthodox cannot and should not become more \"Latin\" in this regard; the only way for there to be a real union would be for the Latins to become Orthodox. (I use Latin, Roman Catholic, Roman, etc. interchangeably. I don\'t mean to sound polemical; I\'m just trying to avoid writing out \"Roman Catholicism\" every time :)

This sounds like a very productive line of questioning. Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue? Now that we have heard what Namees thinks is compatible, what do others think?