Ecumenism, Theory Of

ECUMENISM, THEORY OF. — A term derived from “ecumenical,” that is, universal, which in modern times is used to designate every kind of religious activity that is not limited to the internal problems of a Christian Church. In the proper sense, e. is the most recent theory devised by interconfessional movements, especially Protestant ones, to achieve the union of the Christian Churches. Here e. is discussed in the strict sense.

I. NOTION OF E

E. presupposes as its

basis the equality of all the Churches before the problem of union.

This is so under the threefold psychological, historical, and eschatological aspect: a) psychologically, all the Churches must recognize themselves as equally guilty of the separation, so that, instead of blaming one another, each must ask forgiveness; b) historically, no Church, after the separation, can regard itself as the one and complete Church of Christ, but only as a part of this one Church: consequently, none may arrogate to itself the right to oblige the others to return to it; rather, all must feel obliged to reunite among themselves in order to reconstitute the One and Holy Church founded by the Savior; c) eschatologically, the future Church resulting from the union cannot be identical with any of the Churches now in existence. The Holy Ecumenical Church that will arise in this new Pentecost will likewise transcend all the individual Christian confessions. It can immediately be seen that such theories are in conflict with the Catholic faith. They nevertheless offer a certain practical advantage, eliminating all rivalry among the various Churches and presenting the arduous problem of union on a plane without Orthodox and heretics, without victors and vanquished. For this reason, unionist journals multiplied under the title Oecumenica; even the two most important international unionist associations, Life and Work and Faith and Order, merged in 1946 into a single organization under the title “Ecumenical Council,” whose first congress was held in Amsterdam from 22 Aug. to 5 Sept. 1948.

II. PROTESTANT E

Given the origin of e., it found broad acceptance in Protestant circles. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and the other minor sects constitute the most numerous element of e., which also found its principal authors among Protestants; and this although perfect agreement does not prevail among them (v. below).
III. E. ORIENTALE. — The separated Easterners should logically take a stand against e., since, like Catholics, they proclaim themselves the one true Church of Christ. Nevertheless, the principal representatives of the Eastern Churches and their most renowned authors show themselves ready to join the Protestant ecumenists.

The thought of the Easterners was collected in the volume Il problema ecumenico nella coscienza ortodossa, published by the YMCA (3, d.) of Paris. In general, it may be said that the Eastern ecumenists, chiefly Russians, hark back to the concept of the “universal Church,” so frequent among Russian thinkers of the nineteenth century. Some distinguish between the essence and nature and the form of the Church (in the language of Catholic theology, these concepts correspond to the body and soul, or rather to the matter and form, of the Church), in order to say that the future ecumenical Church will retain the form of their Church, but in a new, more universal body, through which it may develop all the plenitude of its life and holiness. Others, more radical and without theological scruples, such as Nicolao Berdjaev, distinguish between the spirit and the confession, which is too narrow in its dogmatic formulas. All these structures of the Eastern Church, like those of the other Christian Churches, are destined to disappear in the future Church; the spirit, however, will remain intact in fusion with the other Christian Churches.

IV. CATHOLIC E

For Catholics, the paths of e. in the original sense of the term are closed, principally since Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Mortalium animos (6 Jan. 1928), and Pius XII, in Orientalis Ecclesiae (1944), reaffirmed the genuine concept of the unity of the Church and outlined the method to be followed in promoting the return of the dissidents.

Pius XII writes (Orientalis Ecclesiae): «That theory does not lead to the most desired return of the erring children to sincere and rightful unity in Christ which places at the foundation of the harmonious agreement of the faithful only those points of doctrine on which all or most of the communities that glory in the name of Christian are found to agree; rather, it is the other theory which, without accepting or diminishing any of them, fully embraces every truth revealed by God.

It should be added that the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 5 June 1948, in recalling the canonical prescriptions prohibiting mixed meetings, says that these prescriptions “must be observed all the more when it concerns the so-called ecumenical conferences, in which Catholics, lay and clerical, may not participate in any way without the prior consent of the Holy See.” These directives were confirmed in the Instruction of the Holy Office of 20 Dec. 1949 concerning the “ecumenical movement.” Nevertheless, some Catholic supporters of the unionist movement favor e., understood not in the Protestant manner, but as a tactic that seeks points of contact with dissident Christians, from whom, according to some, Catholics would have various lessons to learn. All this seems at least inopportune, since the use of a term which, in its ordinary sense, involves anti-Catholic theories lends itself to confusion.

In 1934 the hieromonk Alessio van der Menschbrugghe, in the article Danger du formalisme, in Oecumenica, 1 (1934), pp. 312–28, and Oscar Bauhofer, in the book Einheit u. Glauben, Einsiedeln 1935, openly show an inclination in favor of e. The abbot P. Coutourier joined it in his articles in the Revue apologétique (1937), as did Fr. M. J. Congar in the book published in Paris in 1937: Chrétienis dénuus. Principes d'un «ocuménisme» catholique.

But this attempt is of a nature to raise serious reservations. Indeed, if for Catholics e. means what the dissidents intended when coining the word, it entails the admission of the separated and Protestant Churches as parts of the true Church, as well as the assertion that the Catholic Church does not currently possess within itself the essential fullness. Fr. Congar can scarcely escape the necessity of admitting at least in part these postulates attributed to e.; not only are individual separated persons of good faith members of the one true Church, but their Churches also possess so many and such elements of the true Church that the dissidents are saved within their Churches, which may thereby be regarded as not wholly detached from the one Church founded by Christ for the salvation of souls. As for the Catholic Church, it is clear that nothing essential is lacking to it, but rather a certain degree of perfection. Thus a certain balance and equality is restored: although in different ways and to different degrees, all without distinction are moving toward union in order to integrate what is lacking in the individual Churches.

It must be acknowledged that this use of e. too has encountered an almost general distrust among Catholics. They find it too bold and dangerous; non-Catholic ecumenists such as P. G. Habert (Un «Oecuménisme» catholique, in Oecumenica, 5 [1938], pp. 10–23) ask themselves whether this e. does not amount rather to an artificial complex of formal ecumenist formulas empty of real meaning.

BIBLI: W. A. Vester-T. Hooft, Le protestantisme et le problème oecuménique, in Oecumenica, 2 (1925), pp. 231–44; N. von Assenier, Die Osthistoire und die ökumenische Bewegung, in Intern. Kirchl. Zeitschrift, 20 (1930), pp. 176–80; N. Berdiaev, L'occuménique et le confessionnalisme: foi et vie, Paris 1931; C. Barth, L'Eglise et les Eglises, in Oecumenica, 3 (1936), pp. 137–155; M. J. Congar, Chrétienis dénuus. Principes d'un «ocuménisme» catholique, Paris 1937; P. Coutourier, L'universelle prière pour l'unité chrétienne, in Revue apologétique, 65 (1937), pp. 411–27, 362–78; S. Bulgakov, Una Sancta. Fondamenti dell'e., in Pat., 58 (1938), pp. 3–14 (in Russian); C. Boyer, Le problème de la réunion des chrétiens, in Unitas, 2 (1947), pp. 310–338; anon., Il problema ecumenico nella coscienza prevoluta (in Russian), Paris s. d. Maurizio Gordillo