Neither side needs to give up its identity in performing the act of
recognition. Fries stresses the difference between recognizing persons
and non-personal things. At the same time, he considers that since
persons often stand for non-personal topics or positions, this
means an overlapping between persons and the things to be recog-
nized. The subject granting recognition should be aware of such an
overlapping.^282
Fries claims that the concept of recognition assumes‘unity in
legitimate plurality’. At the same time, the concept also presupposes
‘a common ground’(ein Gemeinsames) which enables later differen-
tiation. This means that a complete uniformity or fusion of different
understandings of the ecumenical issue of ministry is not the primary
goal of ecumenism. Rather, recognition can coexist with the idea of
giving one’s own identity a distinct profile in ecumenical work. Fries
proposes building a common ground against which the confessional
profiles can retain their relative validity.^283
During the 1970s, some ecumenists clearly preferred the option of
different identities proposed by Fries, whereas others opted for a
stricter version of visible unity. The most extensive ecumenical dis-
cussion concerns the Roman Catholic recognition of the Lutheran
Augsburg Confession. This idea was launched by the Catholic church
historian Vinzenz Pfnür in 1975. Unlike Fries, Pfnür does not pay
much attention to the concept of recognition, focusing on the
achievements of the Catholic–Lutheran dialogue, and claiming that
they already provide an extensive common ground for an act of
recognition. He does emphasize, however, the Catholic need for a
‘revision’of its understanding of the Reformation. Pfnür considers
that the Augsburg Confession is also in itself a Protestant revision
that moderates some of Luther’s extreme positions.^284
In a sense, Pfnür’s proposal resembles the various ‘revisions’
undertaken by the Second Vatican Council since, as we saw above,
a canonical act of recognition is an act of revision which consists of
re-evaluating and reformulating earlier texts and positions. In
this sense, the canonical language ofrecognitio is echoed in this
historical debate.
(^282) ‘Was heisst Anerkennung’, 507–8.
(^283) ‘Was heisst Anerkennung’, 508–9, 511–12.
(^284) ‘Anerkennung der Confessio Augustana’, 306.
The Modern Era 177