ECUMENISM, THEORY OF. — The word is derived from “ecumenical,” i.e., universal, and in modern times has been used to denote any kind of religious activity not confined to the internal problems of a single Christian Church. In its proper sense, ecumenism is the most recent theory devised by interconfessional movements, especially Protestant ones, to achieve the union of Christian Churches. The present article deals with ecumenism in the strict sense.
I. CONCEPT OF ECUMENISM
Ecumenism presupposes as its basis the equality of all Churches before the problem of union, under three aspects: psychological, historical, and eschatological.a) Psychologically, all Churches must acknowledge themselves equally guilty of the separation, so that instead of accusing one another, each must ask for forgiveness;
b) Historically, no Church, after the separation, can consider itself the one and total Church of Christ, but only a part of this one Church; consequently, none can claim the right to compel the others to return to it, but all must feel the obligation to reunite among themselves to reconstitute the One, Holy Church founded by the Saviour;
c) Eschatologically, the future Church, resulting from this union, cannot be identical with any of the Churches now existing. The Holy Ecumenical Church that will arise in this new Pentecost will surpass all individual Christian confessions alike.
It is immediately evident that such theories are in contrast with Catholic faith. Nevertheless, they offer a certain practical advantage by removing rivalry among the various Churches and presenting the arduous problem of union in a framework without orthodox and heretics, without victors and vanquished. Hence, unionist journals with the title *Oecumenica* have multiplied. Moreover, the two most important international unionist associations, *Life and Work* and *Faith and Order*, merged in 1946 under the title “Ecumenical Council,” whose first congress was held in Amsterdam from 22 August to 5 September 1948.
II. PROTESTANT ECUMENISM
Given the origin of ecumenism, it found wide acceptance in Protestant circles. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and other smaller groups constitute the largest element in ecumenism, which also found its principal authors among Protestants, even though perfect agreement does not prevail among them (see below).III. EASTERN ECUMENISM
Logically, the separated Easterners should take a stand against ecumenism, since, like Catholics, they proclaim themselves the one true Church of Christ. Nevertheless, the leading exponents of the Eastern Churches and the most renowned authors show themselves ready to side with Protestant ecumenists.The thought of the Easterners has been gathered in the volume *Il problema ecumenico nella coscienza ortodossa*, published by the YMCA (n.d.) in Paris. In general, it may be said that Eastern ecumenists, mainly Russians, link up with the concept of the “universal Church,” so frequent among Russian thinkers of the 19th century. Some distinguish between the essence and nature and the form of the Church (in Catholic theological language, these concepts correspond to the body and the soul, or to the matter and form of the Church), saying that the future ecumenical Church will preserve the form of their Church, but in a new, more universal body, through which it may develop all its fullness of life and holiness. Others, more radical and unburdened by theological scruples, such as Nicolai Berdyaev, distinguish spirit and confession, which is too narrow in dogmatic formulas. All these frameworks 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 its fusion with the other Christian Churches.
IV. CATHOLIC ECUMENISM
For Catholics, the paths of ecumenism in the original sense of the term are precluded, especially after Pope Pius XI in his encyclical *Mortalium animos* (6 January 1938) and Pope Pius XII in *Orientalis Ecclesiae* (1944) reaffirmed the genuine concept of the unity of the Church and outlined the method to be followed to promote the return of the dissenters.Pope Pius XII (*Orientalis Ecclesiae*) writes: “That theory which bases the concordant consensus of the faithful solely on those heads of doctrine on which all or most of the communities that glory in the Christian name agree does not lead the erring sons back to sincere and just unity in Christ.”
It must be added that the Congregation of the Holy Office, in a decree of 5 June 1948, recalling the canonical prescriptions that forbid mixed meetings, states that these prescriptions “must be observed all the more when it is a question of the so-called ecumenical gatherings, to which Catholics, lay and clerical, cannot take any part without prior consent of the Holy See.” These directives were confirmed in the Instruction of the Holy Office of 20 December 1949 on the ecumenical movement.
Nevertheless, some Catholic supporters of the unionist movement favour ecumenism, not in the Protestant manner, but as a tactic seeking points of contact with dissenting Christians, from whom, according to some, Catholics have lessons to learn. All this seems at least imprudent, since it lends itself to confusion by the use of a term that, in its current sense, involves anti-Catholic theories.
In 1934, Alexis van der Mensbrugghe, in the article *Dangev du formalisme*, in *Oecumenica*, 1 (1934), pp. 312-28, and Oscar Bauhofer in the book *Einheit u. Glauben*, Einsiedeln 1935, openly showed a leaning towards ecumenism. To it adhered Abbot P. Couturier in his articles in the *Revue apologétique* (1937) and Fr. M.-J. Congar in the book published in 1937 in Paris: *Chrétiens désunis. Principes d’un «ecuménisme» catholique*.
But this attempt raises serious reservations. Indeed, if for Catholics ecumenism means what the dissenters intend by the word, it entails the admission of the separated and Protestant Churches as parts of the true Church, as well as the affirmation that the Catholic Church does not possess in itself the essential fullness at present. Fr. Congar can hardly escape the necessity of admitting, at least in part, the postulates assigned to ecumenism: not only are individual separated persons of good faith members of the one true Church, but their Churches possess such and all the elements of the true Church that the dissenters are saved within their Churches, which can therefore be considered not totally detached from the one Church founded by Christ for the salvation of souls. As for the Catholic Church, it is clear that it lacks nothing essential, but only a certain degree of perfection. Thus a certain balance and equality is restored; although in different ways and degrees, all without distinction move towards union to supply what is lacking in the individual Churches.
It must be admitted that even this use of ecumenism has met with almost universal distrust among Catholics. They find it too bold and dangerous; Catholic ecumenists such as P. G. Habert (*Un «Oecumenisme» catholique*, in *Oecumenica*, 5 [1938], pp. 10-23) ask whether this ecumenism does not rather reduce itself to an artificial complex of ecumenist formulas devoid of real meaning.