The Catholic Herald skriver om hva mange liberale har tenkt økumenikk bør være; å inngå kompromiss, å ikke være så nøye med sannheten etc. (Også mange konservative har latt seg lure av denne definisjonen, og dermed på feil grunnlag blitt svært negative til økumenikken.):
… the purpose of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, so far as the Church was concerned, was an agreement in which the Archbishop of Canterbury would once again become bishop of a historic see of the Church that Anglicans describe as “Roman Catholic”. Unfortunately, participants on both sides of ARCIC glossed over the fact that doctrines of transubstantiation and infallibility are unchangeable: one can do no more than tinker with the language in which they are defined.
Indeed, both sides implied that they could offer what were, in fact, impossible concessions. Many, if not most, Anglicans are Protestants: their objections to Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and papal primacy are fundamental. ARCIC established some genuine common ground between the two bodies; but some of the convergence was illusory. And this was the case even before Anglicans took irreversible decisions to ordain women priests and (in many provinces) women bishops, too.
As a result of these latter developments, a tremendous gloom settled over the Church’s official ecumenists. It has taken Pope Benedict XVI to show us that ecumenical dialogue can achieve the long-awaited goal of corporate reunion by another route.
Father Z. skriver også om dette, og avslutter sin kommentar kraftfullt på denne måten: “Do not let liberal ecumenists define ecumenism. Do not accept their premises. Instead, take heart and guidance from the Pope of Christian Unity; Pope Benedict XVI.”