20 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION of the Lord; we are increasingly dissatisfied with the ecumenical status quo; in this atmosphere, ecumenical frustration and sometimes even opposition develops. Paradoxically it is the same ecumenical progress that is also the cause for the ecumenical malaise.39 Additionally, within many Churches, financial and human resources have declined over the past years at the cost of ecumenical commitment. Furthermore, new divisive topics have arisen, threatening both inter- and intraconfessional relations. Most of them are ethical in nature, for example, the ordination of women and the debates on homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia in Lutheranism and the Anglican Communion. In the Orthodox world, church political disputes about jurisprudence and primacy resulted in a breach of Eucharistic communion between Moscow and Constantinople in 2018. Finally, revitalized denominationalism in reaction to globalization and postmodern relativism undermines genuine efforts to overcome dogmatic differences and hampers the reception of earlier agreements. Moreover, confessions tend to point at each other’s shortcomings. Ola Tjørhom offers a striking example of this latter tendency, including this study’s topic: [A]mong Protestants the Catholic reluctance to open up to forms of Eucharistic sharing is sharply criticized, while Roman Catholics claim that the goal of visible unity in effect has been abandoned by the Protestant churches.40 Nevertheless, this stage of the ecumenical process also offers hope as it reflects the vast progress already made. In this sense, the so-called ecumenical Winter is just another stage, one following the phase of getting acquainted with and resolving past misunderstandings, and prior to the phase of final reunion. It is an “intermediate situation between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’,”41 with its particular needs and challenges. The main objectives of this stage are consolidation of past results by protecting them against new potentially divisive influences and by their reception in the lives of the churches, as well as finding new ways to proceed towards the next stage of the ecumenical process. The distinct nature of this particular intermediate stage in the ecumenical process requires its own approach. Annemarie Dillen and Stefan Gärtner, 39 Kasper, “Present Situation.” 40 Ola Tjørhom, “An ‘Ecumenical Winter’? Challenges in Contemporary Catholic Ecumenism,” The Heythrop Journal 49, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 49, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2265.2008.00380.x. 41 Kasper, “Present Situation.” Indeed, Cardinal Kasper strongly rejects the pessimism implied in the word ‘winter’.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw