CHAPTER 1: ECUMENICAL PROGRESS AND STAGNATION 29 The conviction is that this is an ecumenically significant question with great transformative potential that can continue to be asked even when there is no realistic chance of coming to closer, programmed agreement with the other on particular points.66 In short: Receptive Ecumenism is about having evoked in us the desire to become more fully, more freely, and more richly what we already are through the expansion of possibilities that relationship brings. From the Roman Catholic perspective, for example, this much-needed process of ecclesial growth, conversion, and maturing through receptive ecumenical learning is not a matter of becoming less Catholic but of becoming more Catholic precisely by becoming more appropriately Anglican, more appropriate Lutheran, more appropriately Methodist, more appropriately Orthodox, etc.67 Interestingly, this very process is reflected in the interviews when the monastics articulate their own ecumenical development. The theme will be explored most notably in sections 7.1 and 10.4. Lived ecumenism and the significance of experience The questions concerning the reception of theological convergence and agreement in the bi- and multilateral dialogues (Thiessen, Clifford, Kasper) have so far demonstrated the need for an intensification of spiritual ecumenism (Kasper, Pizzey), shifts of focus from the formal to the interpersonal level (Hoffmann) and from the cognitive dimension to other realms of human interaction (Monet), and a renewed ecumenical strategy of receptiveness (Murray). Another consultation of the Societas Oecumenica urges a reckoning with the actual ecumenical practice and experience of grassroots initiatives: lived ecumenism. As Johanna Rahner puts it: The local ecumenical interaction, the shared life of Christians, plays a central role in theological truth-finding. What is recognized, acknowledged, and practiced as ‘true’ in concrete encounters cannot 66 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism - Receiving Gifts,” 39. 67 Murray, “Receptive Ecumenism - Establishing the Agenda,” 16 (italics in original). Antonia Pizzey notes that the willingness to learn is not only the biggest strength of receptive ecumenism but at the same time also the biggest challenge for its success. It cannot succeed as an ecumenical method if it is not adopted by a majority within a particular church, she argues. Cf. Pizzey, Receptive Ecumenism, 218–25.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw