recognize one another as churches, they can still be members of the
World Council because they both recognize a third party (C), namely,
Jesus as Lord. In a similar manner, when Pope Paul VI says in 1967
that the East and the West are called‘to recognize the sameness of
faith underlying the differences of vocabulary’,^301 he is also introdu-
cing a new entity, C, sameness of faith, that appears between the East
and the West. Analogically, Heinrich Fries’s idea of a common
ground^302 can be understood as a mediating entity which both parties
can affirm even when they do not approve of each other. Likewise, the
one church, the whole people of God, and the common confession
mentioned in the Porvoo Common Statement^303 serve as mediating
concepts towards which the primary acknowledgement of the churches
is directed.
We may label this idea‘mediated recognition’. In mediated recog-
nition, parties A and B recognize or acknowledge a third entity, C,
which can be argued to contain relevant potential that can mediate
future direct recognition between A and B. In the ecumenical texts
discussed above, C typically appears as a theological truth shared by
A and B. It often adds a vertical theological dimension to the hori-
zontal relation between A and B. Let us label C as‘categorial stance’;
this phrase simply means that a potentially shared view can take the
role of C in the event of mediated recognition.^304 It is noteworthy that
C does not appear in the ecumenical texts as a legal or administrative
method; by contrast, it adds a conviction or a vertical spiritual
dimension to the issue. While C is typically non-personal, it may
connect the parties with third persons.
Mediated recognition does not seem to play a prominent role
before the twentieth century. This may be owing to the typically
modern situation of having two fairly equal parties between which a
horizontal mediation occurs. As we have seen, religious texts tend to
emphasize some immediate personal encounter along the upward
and downward scales of recognition. This does not, however, rule
(^301) Doing the Truth, 183.
(^302) Fries,‘Was heisst Anerkennung’, 508–9, 511–12.
(^303) Together in Mission and Ministry, 30 (Porvoo 58a).
(^304) For mediated recognition and categorial stance in general, see Koskinen 2016
and section 1.5 in this volume.‘Categorial stance’is a context-neutral phrase. In
religion, it may refer to shared vertical convictions; in politics, to shared values (like
democratic process, fairness, etc.) between different parties. In playing chess, com-
monly approved rules establish the categorial stance between players.
182 Recognition and Religion