interpersonal act; therefore, the recognition of a text needs to be
accompanied by directly interpersonal acts. This also means that
recognition is a‘spiritual and ecclesial’act.^291
Kasper adopts Fries’s position that recognition assumes a legitim-
ate plurality on a common ground. This means, however, that the
Catholic church cannot simply adopt the Augsburg Confession as its
own document of faith; rather, it needs to state that this text repre-
sents one way of thinking about the Catholic faith. Such an option
cannot remain a merely diplomatic act, since it also needs to define
the sense in which the communion with such a confession mayfind
space within the unity of the Catholic church.^292 Kasper considers
that some conciliar structures of church unity need to be established
in order to create this space; such conciliar decision-making is not
possible in the immediate future. He does think, however, that it
would be possible to launch a statement in 1980 saying that the
Augsburg Confession‘can be interpreted in a Catholic fashion’.^293
While Kasper seems to be more open to the issue of revised
interpretation than Ratzinger, they both agree in pointing out that
real theological recognition basically entails an act of decision-
making, a spiritual act that means a new orientation. This result
proved to be afinal obstacle to the ecumenical process that faded
around 1980. Ratzinger and Kasper do, however, advance arguments
that are in keeping with the long tradition of religious recognition.
The act of recognition is performative and takes place as conversion
and change; moreover, it is not merely a revision or a new interpret-
ation, although it may be accompanied by new epistemic insights.
When Kasper and Ratzinger emphasize the‘spiritual’nature of rec-
ognition, they are not making a pious remark but want to distinguish
the theological performance of recognition from the legal and admin-
istrative uses of the concept. Given the earlier ecumenical attempts of
Faith and Order, this is clearly adequate.
Although the ecumenical process was not continued after 1980,
later studies analysing it provide some valuable insights regarding
religious recognition. Peter Gauly has collected and analysed the
German documentation. He points out that the concept ofAnerkennung
was not sufficiently investigated. Gauly basically agrees with Kasper
(^291) ‘Katholische Anerkennung’, 152–3.
(^292) ‘Katholische Anerkennung’, 152.
(^293) ‘Katholische Anerkennung’, 155–6.
The Modern Era 179