Before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) Catholics approached Ecumenism (Christian Unity) with an apparent negativity. Non-Catholics were seen as in error. They needed to correct themselves by joining the Catholic Church.
At Vatican II the Church seemed to change its approach. It accepted that non-Catholic practices could have value. It admitted its own mistakes in contributing to disunity, and it invited Catholics to engage positively in Ecumenical dialogue (Unitatis Redintegratio, 6–7, 1964).
Was this change of approach a mistake?
1. A Theological Problem
One of the imperatives for Ecumenism is a theological problem.
Jesus prayed for unity (John 17:20–23). Yet Christians remain disunified. This raises questions. Is Jesus’ prayer ineffective? Is an all-powerful God unable to end disunity, so that (like the Problem of Evil) it is a reason for rejecting God?
Questions like this mean that disunity can become what Pope St. John Paul II in 1995 called a “grave obstacle” to preaching the gospel (Ut Unum Sint, 99).
Christians have a serious obligation to resolve this “grave obstacle.” Or else they could become morally complicit in a sin which “openly contradicts the will of Christ” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1).
2. No Problem: Invisible Unity
One solution to disunity is to deny that the problem exists. This approach insists that the different branches (or denominations) of Christianity constitute an invisible church. So, Christians are invisibly in unity even though they seem to be visibly disunited.
But, appealing to “invisible unity” seems to fly in the face of reality. Christians are obviously not unified, as anyone can see for themselves. Claiming differently just looks dishonest, or delusional.
In 1943 Pope Pius XII rejected the “invisible unity” view. He insisted that the Church is always “visible” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 14, 1943). So Catholics cannot “define” the problem of disunity away. The problem exists and they cannot avoid the need to engage with it.
3. Reconciliation
There are broadly two approaches to reconciling disunity.
There is an “issues” approach, which typically consists of identifying errors and insisting that the party deemed erroneous should change its ways.
Alternatively, there is a “relationship” approach. This tries to engage people positively, to motivate a desire to deal with the issues effectively.
Modern psychology suggests that relationship approaches tend to be more successful than issues approaches. This insight has led to new models of negotiation, new developments with restorative justice, and new approaches to marriage guidance.
Historically, Catholics used an “issues” approach to deal with Ecumenism. The findings of modern psychology represent a challenge. Should Catholics stick with a traditional approach which there is now reason to think is less likely to succeed; or should they take a new approach which is more likely to heal the divisions of disunity?
Rejecting an approach which is more likely to end disunity would question the Church’s sincerity about wanting unity. It could even be construed as complicity in the sin of continuing disunity.
So, Vatican II decided to embrace a new “relationships” approach to Ecumenism.
4. Religious Freedom
One of the first barriers to a relationships approach was the Church’s traditional approach to Religious Tolerance. Historically the Church would tolerate other groups of Christians until it (or civil authorities) was powerful enough to ban their public worship.
Building a positive relationship with non-Catholics is not compatible with simultaneously threatening to ban them as soon as it is possible to do so.
So, Vatican II’s first step towards Ecumenism was changing the Church’s “policy” from tolerance to Religious Freedom. (See “Religious Freedom: Did Vatican II Change Church Doctrine?”)
5. Loose Unity
Vatican II committed Catholics to seeking unity, but what is unity?
There are loose unities or “alliances,” in which people put wider disagreements aside to seek a common aim. Political campaigns often work like this, when different religions can put their faith differences aside to work in an alliance to try and deal with a specific issue, like abortion.
Alliance unities can be valuable and effective. But they are also fragile and very limited in what they can achieve.
Preaching a Gospel of human flourishing is not a “limited” project. It involves taking a position on many different theological, ethical and social issues. So an alliance model of unity cannot work for Christian unity.
6. Unity of Faith and Doctrine
Pope Bl. Pius IX explained that an adequate model of Christian unity must involve a “unity of faith and doctrine” (Amantissimus, 1862). This is because achieving unity in faith practice presupposes an underlying unity of belief about those practices.
Agreeing with this view, Pope Leo XIII stressed that seeking unity must avoid fudging and misrepresenting doctrine (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, 1899). Pope Pius XII added that it must also avoid minimalizing dogma (Humani Generis, 1950).
Vatican II agreed with those popes. It stated: “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 11).
History shows why this is important. The Council of Florence (1431–49) tried to bring about the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches. Arguably, part of the motivation for unity was an Eastern desire for a military alliance to prevent the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople (which subsequently occurred in 1453). Verbal agreements of unity were reached, but they glossed over doctrinal disagreements. Unsurprisingly, the proclaimed “unity” quickly unraveled when people looked closely at what had supposedly been agreed.
Doctrinal agreement is essential. But it does not require identity of theological language. Vatican II stated: “Let all… enjoy a proper freedom… in their theological elaborations of revealed truth” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 4). So, an important part of Ecumenism is dialogue to explore different ways of expressing doctrine.
7. Vatican II’s Vision for Ecumenism
The council stressed three main elements.
Firstly, there is a focus on building positive relationships. Pope John Paul II described it as working to eradicate antagonism and conflict (Ut Unum Sint, 29). Since the council, this approach has successfully overturned centuries of anti-Catholic propaganda in some parts of the world.
Secondly, Vatican II thought that achieving unity should be focused on a quest for doctrinal agreement: one which is honest and does not misrepresent dogma to create false agreements.
Thirdly, doctrinal agreement should explore different forms of expression. This is especially so when historical phrases may be linked to what Pope John Paul II referred to as “intolerant polemics and controversies” (Ut Unum Sint, 38).
This seems a reasonable approach to Ecumenism. So why would critics object to Vatican II?
8. Doctrinal Problems: Subsisting Unity
Critics claim that Vatican II’s views on Ecumenism are wrong because they contradict previous Church teaching.
Traditionally Catholics said that the Church “is” the Roman Catholic Church. But Vatican II’s decree on Ecumenism said that the Church “subsists” in the Roman Catholic Church (Unitatis Redintegratio, 4).
This change of language is not a contradiction. It is potentially a “development of doctrine,” which tidies up an unfinished piece of medieval theologizing.
Traditionally Catholics have insisted that there is no salvation outside the Church. They combined this with a binary view of Church membership, so people were either in the Church (as a Roman Catholic) or they were outside the Church (as a non-Catholic).
But medieval theologians also had an odd third category. People could gain salvation by being “sort-of” in the Church, if they were a non-Catholic but “invincibly ignorant” (i.e., not morally responsible for failing to be a Catholic), or if they had a “baptism of desire” (i.e., intending to become a Catholic).
Vatican II has developed that traditional idea of “sort-of” Church membership, by viewing it as “degrees” of Church membership. Even when Catholics are disunified from Protestants or Orthodoxy, they still have degrees of fellowship based around features such as shared baptism (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3).
As a result, Vatican II talks of the “Church” and “unity” as subsisting in the Catholic Church, rather than using the older language of identifying it with the Church. This way of expressing things is certainly different to the language which the Church used prior to Vatican II, but its basis is a development of theological ideas which go back to the medieval era.
9. Non-Catholic Communities Are Salvific
Another criticism of Vatican II focuses on the fact that it spoke of there being “value” in non-Catholic religions, and even implied that non-Catholic faiths could be “salvific” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3).
Previously, popes such as Pius XI strongly criticized views which equated other religions with Catholicism. He insisted that salvific membership of the Church could only be found by returning to Catholicism (Mortalium Annos, 2–3,1928).
Vatican II is not contradicting that view, but it is nuancing it. If salvation arises from being in the Church, but there are degrees of being-in-the-Church (see section 8), then there must be degrees of salvific-ness arising from the degrees of being-in-the-Church. In medieval terminology, this is merely to recognize that someone in invincible ignorance can be outside the visible Church, yet nevertheless nurtured spiritually by access to resources such as Scripture.
To clarify the matter, Vatican II noted that there is a difference between people who sinfully cause division amongst Christians, and those who are born into situations of disunity (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3). People born into disunity are not morally responsible for causing disunity. On the contrary, they may be victims of the situation who are acting in the best faith that they can, even when they choose to remain in non-Catholic communities.
In recognizing this reality, Vatican II is not changing doctrine to equate religions. To exclude that misunderstanding, the council reiterated traditional warnings that non-Catholic faiths are “deficient” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3). So, all that the council is doing is developing medieval theological ideas which already existed within Catholic thought.
10. Practical Objections
Some objections to Ecumenism suggest that it makes Missionary activity irrelevant. If people can be saved outside the Church, then what is the point of preaching the gospel, or urging conversion to the Church?
This is not a new problem. Medieval theologians recognized the principles of “baptism by desire” and “invincible ignorance” which underly modern ideas about Ecumenism. Yet they, and the modern Church, also saw no inconsistency in remaining committed to the principle that there is no salvation outside the Church (see “Is the Church Necessary for Salvation?”). This is because the impetus to Missionary activity rested upon contrasting the certainty of the Church’s means of salvation, with the vaguer possibilities of alternatives.
This means that there is no incompatibility between Ecumenism and Missionary activity.
11. Conclusion
Vatican II’s language of Ecumenism is very different to the Church’s previous language, but there is no substantial doctrinal difference.
The differences of language can be appreciated with an analogy. When people describe a glass as half empty, they use completely different language than when they describe it as half full. But they are describing the same reality. When people switch from describing a glass as half empty to describing it as half full, they may give a superficial appearance of contradiction. But there is no substantial change because the underlying reality remains the same.
This is analogous to what has occurred with Vatican II’s language on Ecumenism. It seems very different to the language used before the council, but it is describing the same reality.
If Vatican II is not changing doctrine on Ecumenism, people may still wonder why it risked causing confusion by changing language.
The impetus for this has been the Church’s acknowledgement of psychology’s discoveries about relationship approaches to reconciliation (see section 3). The Church has accepted the insights of psychology into marriage annulment and vocation discernment. This means that it cannot rationally ignore psychology when it comes to questions about the best way to work towards Ecumenical reconciliation.
Did Vatican II make a mistake with Ecumenism? If Vatican I (1870) was right to insist that Faith and Reason should be rationally consistent, then it is difficult to see how Vatican II can be making a mistake when it is simply ensuring that the Church’s approach to Ecumenism is rationally consistent with its Faith and wider practice.
[…] Ecumenism promotes Christian unity, but critics allege infiltration by “undercover rabbis” in sheep’s clothing, per conspiracy claims linking pastors to hidden agendas.[42] Refuting this: ecumenism stems from Vatican II, fostering dialogue without dilution; isolated cases (e.g., Jerusalem rabbi exposed as missionary) fuel paranoia, but lack systemic evidence.[43] […]
I am just reading this article and exchange now. What I respectfully would suggest is missing is an analysis of the impact of the “new ecumenism” on daily Cstholic life. It inevitably leads to the current traditional/liberal Catholic divide that currently exists throughout the Church. My suggestion is that traditional doctrinal language should be changed … as little as possible. If anything, if the Church has now listened to the Protestant Reformerz in Vatican II, then perhaps it should now listen to the traditionalist voices calling on the Church to return to some doctrinal and moral clarity. As a sociologist of religion, I’ve often wondered why theologians are so blissfully distant from the insights that the social sciences can afford it. Council documents and theological terminology make sense to tJose schooled in thst language and in theology. The majority of Cstholics live, however, a less theologically enlightened life. They want clear and simple guidelines like tried and true fasting rules, liturgical beauty thst is really afforded by the Tridentine Mass (in my humble view, and I am an Eastern Cstholic) and moral clarity. [Comment Edited due to length.]
Yes you raise some good questions about the implementation of Ecumenism. They go beyond the scope of the original piece but it is a fair point that confusion and misunderstanding are not going to aid Ecumenism in the long run.
Part of the background problem with some elements of Traditionalism is that it can end up seeming to query the Council itself, rather than (or as well as) querying the implementation of the Council. That causes its voice to be diluted and sometimes discounted, as querying the council is not something that the mainstream Church can countenance. (For reasons, see https://catholicstand.com/does-vatican-ii-have-supreme-authority/ )
[…] Jesus prayed for Christian Unity (John 17:20–23). So, Christians consider that they have a duty to try and achieve it. (See “Ecumenism: Did Vatican II Make a Mistake?”) […]
Looking at Vat 2 as a protestant, I don’t see any difference from the RCC’s prior stands: Vat 2’s language is more conciliatory, but essentially the church’s stand is the same. Once it has dominance, the church’s duty is to exercise jurisdiction over all baptised Christians, and thus to persecute and eliminate minority forms of Christianity. The fact that the church veils this stand, rather than frankly stating it openly (as it used to), does not improve my opinion of the institution.
The commitment to Religious Freedom has led to some significant practical differences for Protestants. For example, after Vatican II, countries with Catholic constitutions had to revise their constitutions to end former practices of refusing to allow non-Catholic worship.
[…] Blogging Toe Socks: Happy Feet . . . a Catholic Mōdê Blog – Meghan Ashley Styling Ecumenism: Did Vatican II Make a Mistake? – Rory Fox at Catholic Stand From Anti-Catholic to Avid Believer, & More Links – […]
VCII IS a mistake.
Yes, some people present reasons for thinking that Vatican II made mistakes. But it is also possible to argue (as above) that Vatican II did not make a mistake. The fact that people can argue the issues either way raises a deeper question about how to solve theological questions when people disagree.
By the 1960s there were NO Catholic countries which prohibited noncatholic worship. This had been the situation for decades if not centuries.
Yes by the time of Vatican II the era of outright bans on non-Catholic worship in Catholic countries had ended. But those countries tended to distinguish between an acceptable private non-Catholic worthip and a public expression of non-Catholic worship which was often subject to restrictions. Franco’s Spain illustrates some of the issues.
Ignore non-Catholic denominations: do we have unity within the Catholic church? I would argue absolutely not. The Catholic church itself is in a state of “invisible unity”.
I think arguing over unity is a waste of time. The earliest Christians took 300 years to decide God was both man and human. Before that, some said he was man only, some said God only, and others said he was two separate people. The church didn’t even have unity on the most core of issues. After developing (making up) a multitude of further details over the past 2,000 years, is this the type of unity God really desires? Unity on a bunch of doctrinal details that were made up well after Jesus? I don’t think so. He wants us to be united in loving God and loving one another. And most Christian denominations are – at least on paper – united in those goals.
Thank you Kyle, you make a good point that members of the Church sometimes strain their own unity when they communicate uncharitably or ineffectively.
People can depict the development of doctrine in the Early Church period as ‘making up’ doctrine. But there is also an alternative perspective which sees it as an organic growth clarifying already existing ideas, often arising from practical questions of religious practice. For example, fourth century arguments with Arians about whether Jesus is God can seem to be abstract creative theologising, but it can also have very concrete implications when religious believers have to consider whether honouring Jesus is a sin of idolatry, or not.
There is an intuitive attractiveness in the idea of everyone being united in love, rather than worrying about unity of doctrine. But love includes ‘acts of love,’ and what people do in activities depends on what they believe. For example, people with different beliefs about euthanasia might have very different views about what counts as acting lovingly in situations involving euthanasia.
So, yes unity in love of God is the goal for Christians, but working to achieve that goal tends to raise unavoidable questions about beliefs and doctrines. Perhaps Ecumenical dialogue has a role to play in clarifying those doctrinal issues?
Thanks for the reply. You make some very good points, and I completely agree that there will be discussion and disagreement over what constitutes an act of love. I welcome those discussions and debates. I also understand that different groups will come to different conclusions.
When it comes to doctrine regarding purely theological topics like the divinity of Christ or the virginity of Mary, my point was that Jesus was not clear. The Arians may have largely outnumbered the non-Arians at points in early Christianity. If these doctrinal points were that important to Jesus, I would’ve expected him to lay them out more clearly. If someone believes Jesus is God and worships him, I have no problem with that. If someone believes he was only sent by God with a message and doesn’t worship him, I have no problem with that either. Neither is provable, and we can’t be sure where Jesus even stood on the matter given that the earliest followers landed all over the place on who he was. The meat of Jesus’s message is clear and consistent though, and I think that is where we can be united and where we should spend our time – attempting to determine what the loving actions are in today’s world. That’s where I think ecumenical dialogue has a role to play – it’s just incredibly difficult to have that dialogue when one side claims to be infallible on its teachings. As others have said in the comments, it is impossible to have that dialogue if you believe in the infallibility of the RCC. Vatican II effectively started to implicitly question the idea of infallibility, and the pushback over the past 50+ years has attempted to put that genie back in the bottle. Before we as the RCC can move forward ecumenically, I think we need to decide how we feel about infallibility. Most Catholics don’t believe in it (the invisible unity). If we can’t admit that the idea of infallibility is flawed, I don’t see a point in moving forward with ecumenism. If we believe we’re infallible, then trying to change various words to appease other denominations feels like manipulation. That’s my 2 cents. I do appreciate your thought-provoking articles!
Yes there is an important distinction between doctrines as statements of belief, and the attitudes by which people hold and express their beliefs? For example, people can believe (or not-believe) in the divinity of Jesus and they can do so with positive attitudes towards each other, or with negative attitudes of threats and violence. Perhaps one of the challenges of Ecumenism is to encourage people to look beyond doctrines to their attitudes, so that they can learn to live faith, and faith differences, in a more charitable way?
One way of thinking about infallibility is that it is just a mechanism for arriving at non-negotiables. And, of course, most religions have non-negotiables, even if they do not use the language of infallibility. For example, some people believe in a literal 7 days of creation as a non-negotiable interpretation of Scripture.
Attempts to reconcile differences are unlikely to be successful if it just amounts to arguing about non-negotiables. Trying to understand the attitudes driving commitments to non-negotiables may be an ultimately more successful approach, as sometimes an understanding will unlock a new insight. Ultimate all people can do is listen to each other, treat each other charitably and pray for success.
I completely agree with you first paragraph. I absolutely think the goal is to live with respect for each others’ different beliefs on theological topics.
Moving to your second paragraph, I think that is a dangerous way to look at infallibility. It’s a nicer way to look at it, but it’s not accurate. There is a big different between stating one’s beliefs and saying they are infallibly true. Other faiths can state that they believe the earth was created in seven days, but that doesn’t change our ability to work with them on how to live out Jesus’ message today. The Catholic church can and should state/declare its official beliefs, but I don’t think it should claim infallibility. The claim to infallibility hinders the development of respect for one another both within and outside of Catholicism. Obviously, a vast, vast majority of Catholics don’t believe in every “infallible” tenet of church teaching. Dropping infallibility would in my opinion lead to not only greater respect for those of other faiths but also within our own church. Many in the Catholic church use infallibility as a sword to attack others which is contrary to Jesus’ message.
In practice, it appears that-without one or both parties ignoring, abandoning, or abrogating doctrine – real ecumenism is not possible:
“In practical reality, the view described here as “false ecumenism,” requires that proponents of the various religions who want to engage in fruitful ecumenism must jettison, or deny, one or some of their beliefs to create, a “new” religion with a “new and common ecumenical theology, a universal theology.” This false ecumenism cannot be based on any agreement for the ecumenical partners to simply ignore dogmas and doctrines. Without doctrine-defeating , dogma-destroying ecumenical metanoia, no new religion can be achieved.
The “Problem” Of Truth – No Problem
For Professor Montefiore, various beliefs of the ecumenical partners can, and often do, exhibit “mutual incompatibility.” Montefiore calls this the “problem of truth.” To achieve the new religion, there must be an approach beyond “mutual toleration,” because, in reality, principled “mutual respect” is not really possible.
” “If, however, one believes, or is committed to the belief, that everyone’s best hope, of virtue and/or salvation (however exactly they may be understood) must depend on the doctrinal nature of their religious commitment, one is bound to find a prima facie difficulty in the way of according equal respect to the commitments of those whose doctrines or practices one believes to be in some way mistaken. If I believe that my tradition provides the only true account of the nature of God and of what He requires from His creatures, it would be strange indeed if I did not also believe that it was of vital importance to others that they should come to accept that account – strange, though not, perhaps, logically inconceivable. (Id., p. 150).” ”
It may be that a true believer of one religion can separate the believer of another religion from his or her beliefs (as some do in loving the sinner, hating the sin), but in real life, says Professor Montefiore, there can be a “tension” in trying to do this. This true believer who also wants an ecumenical solution to the disunity among religions must confront an inescapable conclusion. What there is about the other’s beliefs that is “genuinely incompatible” with the true beliefs “must be false.” (Id., p. 155).”
[from my https://the-american-catholic.com/2019/03/25/bergolgian-heresies-false-ecumenism-new-religion/%5D
Guy, so as to be very clear on the matter, it is the CC which must sit down with ITSELF and with absolute faith and guidance from the Holy Spirit put together a NEW Catholic theology from everything that has been revealed from the other three pillars of faith. It is the CC which will glean the best, truest and most plausible possible tenets that reflect our own – we don’t need anyone’s permission to practice this altruistic form of ecumenism.
Dear O.P., That has already been done. No need to do it over. If “New” Catholic Theology means some different opinions, statements, or declarations (even synodal) that contradict accepted dogmas and established doctrines, then that is not a new Catholic theology, that is a new protestant denomination (to be added to the already 22,000 plus) or it is heresy, or both. Guy, Texas
Thank you Guy, you raise some good questions. Where there are substantive doctrinal disagreements then yes unity presupposes resolving those disagreements.
But there are elements of disunity which may be caused by differences of language. There may also be issues of attitude and prejudice which have prevented people from hearing an opposing viewpoint. In so far as attitudes and linguistics have contributed to disunity, they may be resolvable without requiring doctrinal change
The fact invincible ignorance was generated by medieval minds is proof positive that every controversy is a function of ying yang, every nuance a future for further development.
In Mk 9:40 and Lk 9:50 Jesus was very clear that who-so-ever is not against, is with us, and
to forbid not, those acting in His name – to include snake handlers whose faith protects.
Vatican 2 was an intentional breach in the levy that has emptied Western churches. The world is rejecting religion because religions have rejected each other. Everyone is so righteously sick of it. The Catholic religion has failed in-so-far as it’s doctrines ever being a dominant player again. The four major religions which includes Judaism the smallest, have run up against one another and their only option is to meld. Francis sees this, he’s an avid long game fan.- the future of earthling souls lies not in any one religious purview but in the whole of humanity’s faith and commitment to a higher power.
Yes the Mark and Luke texts are very apposite. But they also raise some questions about degrees of unity. For example, an enemy’s enemy may have a degree of friendship, but it may well be a very loose unity that is fragile and limited.
People who disagree can work together to achieve specific goals, but disagreements about ideas tend to lead to differences about the appropriateness of actions and the lifestyles which they contribute to. So, perhaps it isn’t possible for differing faiths to be able to worth together, fully effectively, unless they can achieve a prior unity of belief?
In Matthew 12:30 Jesus was very clear that whoever is not with Him is against Him.
This is a well-thought out piece and thank you for posting it.
It’s clear to me that the Church did in fact change its mind with Vatican II, but you’ve argued the opposite position as well as it can be argued.
I think we’re in agreement that there has certainly been a ‘change of mind’ about language and methodology for solving the problem. Whether there has also been a ‘change of mind’ about the doctrinal issues underlying the change of practice is a fair question. The piece suggests not, but the issues are complex.
In theory, this all seems to make sense, and it all seemed to make sense when it was attempted at Vatican II.
In practice, it has been little short of a disaster, as we have reaped a bitter harvest of Indifferentism over the past 50 years.
There are two major problems I want to highlight, both dealing with “3. Reconciliation.”
The first is a lack of clarity with regard to the end goal. What does ending disunity look like? We know what it will look like with the “issues” approach–those in error repent of said errors, and rejoin the Church.
Is the endgame of a “relationship” approach any different? Should it be different? Is there even an endgame at all?
That ambiguity is a major problem. There is nothing wrong with the doctrinal developments from Vatican II (the matter of degree of Church membership for those born into problematic situations, in particular, was probably long overdue). But that is where things stopped. They weren’t seen as a starting points–they were seen, and have been treated, as the end of the road. Missionary activity has come to a near-complete halt.
The other major problem is that a key reason for adopting the “relationship” approach is that it is supposed to lend itself more readily to negotiation.
Negotiation implies compromise–and on the matters of doctrine that have separated us from our Protestant brethren, the Church literally cannot compromise. At all. We cannot embrace falsehoods and heresy, even for the sake of unity.
Any and all compromises have to come solely from the other direction (e.g. a recent Lutheran-Catholic accord, where the Lutherans were able to retain “sola fide” only by redefining “faith” to encompass everything that Catholics had included in both “faith” and “works”–a complete surrender in everything but form, on one of Luther’s foundational heresies) which seems to fly in the face of a “relationship” approach.
Which again begs the question: If we’re adopting a “relationship” approach, what are we really doing…and what are we really trying to do?
Yes there is an important distinction to be made between the theories of Ecumenism and the practice of how they are implemented. And there may well be some unclarity about the vision for end goals.
But, since 1965, there has also been some real improvements in relationships which have enabled people to talk openly and honestly about doctrinal issues, without the weight of historic polemics prejudicing the discussions. For example, Eastern and Western theologians have reflected on the issue of whether the Son proceeds from the Father alone (ie the ‘Filioque’ controversy) and they have found some subtle nuances of Greek and Latin which may well show the thousand year old disagreement to be more linguistic, rather than substantial.
There are also new philosophical perspectives about the relationships of actions and beliefs, which may also have implications for discussions about faith and works.
This means that with compromising doctrine, there may well be scope for “negotiating” new forms of expression which resolve, and even ‘dissolve,’ historical disagreements which turn out to be linguistic, rather than substantial.