Communicating Faith Across Divides: The Role of Theological Language in Ecumenical Dialogue

Abstract

This article examines the role of theological language in ecumenical dialogue, arguing that Christian division is not only a doctrinal or institutional problem but also a problem of mutual intelligibility. Theological language functions both as a bearer of revelation and as a marker of confessional identity; therefore, concepts such as “justification”, “Church”, “tradition”, “sacrament”, and “communion” often carry historically shaped meanings that may sustain misunderstanding between Christian traditions. Drawing on the hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, the article presents theological language as a dynamic space of interpretation, encounter, and transformation rather than as a fixed system of definitions. It then analyses selected conciliar, bilateral, and study documents, including Unitatis redintegratio, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today, as differently situated instances in which inherited confessional languages are clarified, recontextualized, or rendered mutually intelligible. Against this background, the article proposes the category of communio linguarum, understood as a communion of theological languages capable of mutually recognizing the same faith without reducing legitimate diversity. The model is tested through differentiated consensus, a shared rereading of contested sources, and the renewed reception of inherited formulations. Its implementation requires hermeneutical humility, semantic discernment, reciprocal translation, and ecclesial reception.

1. Introduction

Ecumenical dialogue, understood as a process of clarifying differences, identifying convergences, and seeking visible unity among divided Christian communities, is most often described in doctrinal, institutional, or historical terms. Beneath these dimensions, however, lies a less obvious yet decisive layer: the role of theological language. It is precisely in this language that the faith received in various confessional communities is expressed, transmitted, defended, interpreted, and at times contested. Differences between Christian traditions are therefore not only differences in doctrinal claims; they are also differences in the ways in which those claims are formulated, ordered, and communicated. Theological language thus performs a dual function. On the one hand, it is a bearer of the content of revelation and an instrument for shaping the identity of the believing community. On the other hand, it can become a marker of confessional boundaries, reinforcing a sense of distinctiveness and perpetuating mutual unintelligibility. Concepts such as “justification,” “Church,” “tradition,” “sacrament,” and “communion” are not neutral labels describing ready-made theological realities. They are rooted in particular histories of reception, ecclesial practices, and interpretive structures that shape their meaning (Lindbeck 1984, pp. 33–35; Bouteneff 2009, pp. 352–53; Kempa 2022, pp. 119–22). Consequently, what may at first sight appear to be a dispute about the very content of faith is often inseparably bound up with divergent semantic frameworks.

The aim of this article is to show that theological language in ecumenical dialogue should be understood not only as an instrument for transmitting doctrine but also as a hermeneutical and relational space in which Christian traditions encounter one another. The problem of unity is therefore also a problem of mutual intelligibility. If divisions among Christians are sustained in part by linguistic differences, then ecumenical progress requires not only doctrinal clarification but also a transformation in the way faith is communicated (Kasper 2009, pp. 2–3; Mayer 2006, p. 205; Składanowski 2019, pp. 99–103).

The article addresses three research questions. First, how does theological language shape, but also limit, mutual understanding in ecumenical dialogue? Second, to what extent can a hermeneutical approach help reinterpret concepts that have traditionally divided Christian communities? Third, can a model of communicative unity be proposed—provisionally described here as communio linguarum1—in which different traditions recognize one another as diverse but not necessarily contradictory ways of articulating the same faith?

Methodologically, the study employs hermeneutical, comparative, and theological analysis. It draws on the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, as well as on selected ecumenical approaches and the ecclesiology of communion. This theoretical framework is supplemented by an analysis of major ecclesial and ecumenical documents, which are treated as privileged sites of the transformation of the language of faith. The article begins by characterizing theological language as a confessionally shaped discourse, then moves to a hermeneutical account of faith communication, and finally proposes a model of communio linguarum grounded in an ecclesiological vision of communion. The documentary analysis follows these transformations across conciliar reflection, bilateral doctrinal agreement, joint dialogue on ecclesial ministry, and the synthesis and reception of ecumenical results in a study document, thereby testing the proposed model in sources with different authorship, functions, and levels of ecclesial reception.

2. Theological Language as a Confessionally Shaped Discourse

Theological language does not arise in a vacuum. It takes shape within concrete ecclesial traditions that develop their own vocabularies, styles of argumentation, hierarchies of concepts, and ways of understanding the relationship between doctrine, liturgy, and the life of the community. These linguistic forms are not merely external. They co-constitute the identity of a community, because through them a given tradition recognizes what it regards as essential, orders its own memory of faith, and distinguishes itself from other ways of living the Christian life. In this sense, theological language is an instrument both of continuity and of differentiation (Danilovich 2017, pp. 9–10; Tracy 1981, pp. 101–5; Kempa 2022, pp. 120–23).

Historically, the confessional shaping of language played a significant role in the emergence and persistence of Christian divisions. Many doctrinal controversies took the form of disputes over terminology, definitions, and conceptual distinctions. This does not mean that they were merely semantic disputes. They concerned real theological issues, but language became the place in which those issues were condensed. Reformation controversies were not only disputes about grace, justification, or ecclesial authority; they were also disputes about how these realities should be named, understood, and taught. As polemics developed, particular terms became increasingly associated with specific confessional identities and began to function as boundary markers (Lindbeck 1984, pp. 33–35; Augsburg Confession, art. IV; Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, ch. 7, can. 9–12).

This function becomes especially evident where inherited doctrinal vocabularies have acquired a recognizably confessional profile. Their meaning is shaped not only by the theological realities to which they refer, but also by histories of controversy, reception, and communal self-understanding. In this sense, they do not merely express theological positions; they locate them within a particular interpretive world. George A. Lindbeck rightly observed that doctrines can be understood by analogy to the rules of a cultural–linguistic system: they shape not only what believers think, but also the way in which they learn to speak about faith and to practice it (Lindbeck 1984, p. 35). From this perspective, difficulties in understanding between traditions do not always arise from a simple opposition of content, but from the fact that this content functions within different systems of meaning.

At this point, however, it is important to note the limits of Lindbeck’s model. His approach helps to grasp the community-forming and regulative character of doctrinal language, but it can also lead to an overly strong closure of a tradition within its own grammar of faith. If doctrine is understood primarily as a rule of the internal coherence of a community, the question of its relation to truth, revelation, and the real communion of the Churches can easily be weakened. In ecumenical dialogue, therefore, the cultural–linguistic model requires correction: it must be complemented by a referential and ecclesial dimension. Theological language not only organizes the life of a given community; it also refers to a salvific reality that transcends every single confessional system (Tracy 1987, p. 78; Volf 1996, p. 112; Kempa 2021, pp. 59–60).

There is no doubt that theological language has often developed in a polemical context. Concepts were defined not only positively, by reference to one’s own tradition, but also contrastively, in opposition to positions regarded as erroneous or incomplete. This dynamic may be described as the contrastive intensification of differences: the meaning of a given term is shaped to some extent by its function of distinguishing one community from another. As a result, even where real convergences exist at the level of the fundamental intention of faith, divergent theological vocabularies can sustain the impression of incompatibility. The limitations of language understood in this way become particularly visible in ecumenical dialogue. If each tradition remains enclosed within its own idiom, the conversation risks becoming a series of parallel monologues. Partners may then use the same words in different senses, or different words to express closely related content. The problem is therefore not merely doctrinal divergence, but also communicative disruption. What is needed is an approach that acknowledges the historical and contextual conditioning of language while opening it to reinterpretation, translation, and mutual learning (Danilovich 2017, pp. 14–15; Mayer 2006, pp. 207–8). Such a possibility is offered by a hermeneutical perspective.

3. A Hermeneutical Account of Faith Communication

The preceding analysis has shown that theological language, shaped within particular confessional traditions, can perform both a communicative and a boundary-marking function. If ecumenical dialogue is to lead to genuine mutual understanding, however, it is necessary to move beyond a purely descriptive and definitional account of language. In this context, a hermeneutical perspective becomes especially significant, for it makes it possible to grasp theological language as the space of a dynamic event of meaning, not merely as a set of fixed meanings.

A starting point for such an approach can be found in the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer, who interprets understanding not as a technical reconstruction of meaning but as an event that takes place in dialogue. Meaning is not simply extracted from an utterance as ready-made content; rather, it emerges in the encounter of horizons: the traditions, language, history, and experience of the participants in understanding (Gadamer 1989, pp. 306–7). Every attempt to understand the theological statement of another tradition therefore presupposes not only knowledge of its terminology, but also a willingness to enter its context of meaning. In ecumenical dialogue, the issue is not the simple replacement of one vocabulary by another, but a process of the mutual broadening of horizons of understanding (Hryniewicz 1998, pp. 130–31).

One consequence of this perspective is a departure from the conviction that the meaning of theological concepts can be fixed once and for all in the form of a definition. Such concepts are not self-contained semantic units; they acquire meaning within living interpretive traditions. Their meaning is disclosed in the context of practices of faith, liturgy, ecclesial life, and the history of doctrine. A hermeneutical account of language therefore allows us to see that at least some confessional differences arise not so much from a radical contradiction of content as from different modes of articulation, theological elaboration, and reception (Meyer 1999, p. 151; Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, no. 40).

This perspective is deepened by Paul Ricoeur’s reflection, which emphasizes the symbolic and metaphorical character of religious language. The language of faith is not limited to a descriptive function; rather, it has the capacity to open a surplus of meaning that exceeds the literal meaning of the utterance (Ricoeur 1976, pp. 45–48; Ricoeur 1977, pp. 5–7). Theological formulas are therefore not closed definitions, but interpretive ways of referring to a reality that always surpasses language. In the ecumenical context, it may thus be acknowledged that different ways of speaking about the same salvific reality can be complementary and not necessarily contradictory (Dola 1995, p. 82).

Ricoeur’s category of the surplus of meaning, then, protects the language of faith from reduction to a single formula and can therefore play an inspiring role in approaching dialogue. This does not mean, however, that every theological or religious statement is equally valid. Ecumenical theology needs not only interpretive openness, but also criteria of discernment: rootedness in apostolic witness, in the rule of faith, in liturgical practice, and in ecclesial reception. Without these criteria, plurality of meanings could turn into indeterminacy, and the communication of faith would lose its capacity to formulate binding claims (World Council of Churches 2013, nos. 11–12; Hryniewicz 1998, pp. 127–31).

Ricoeur’s concept of the surplus of meaning seems especially useful, however, in addressing the tension between fidelity to doctrine and openness to dialogue. If theological language does not fully exhaust the reality to which it refers, no single tradition can claim to express it completely. This does not imply the relativization of truth, but rather recalls that the truth of faith is greater than each of its historical articulations. It opens a space for mutual learning, in which traditions not only compare their formulas but also discover new dimensions of meaning through encounter with another language of faith.

In light of the hermeneutics of Gadamer and Ricoeur, faith communication thus appears not as the transmission of ready-made content, but as a process of dialogue in which its proper meaning is recognized, interpreted, and deepened. This does not mean abandoning truth, but rather changing the way it is communicated: from a purely definitional model toward a relational model, in which listening, interpretation, and mutual reference play an essential role. In such an approach, doctrinal precision remains necessary, but it is not sufficient in itself. What is also needed is the capacity to understand how a given formula functions in the life of a concrete community (Gadamer 1989, pp. 362–63; Ricoeur 1976, pp. 86–88; Lindbeck 1984, pp. 33–35).

In this context, one may speak of the need for hermeneutical humility as a condition of fruitful ecumenical dialogue. It consists of recognizing that one’s own theological language, although rooted in an authentic tradition of faith, remains historically and culturally conditioned. Such an attitude does not lead to relativism. On the contrary, it makes possible a deeper grasp of truth by opening oneself to its multidimensional expressions. As a result, dialogue ceases to be a confrontation between closed systems and becomes a shared path of interpretation.

A hermeneutical account of theological language thus allows us to grasp its dual character: it is at once a bearer of tradition and a space in which tradition is transcended. In ecumenical dialogue this means that unity need not consist in the unification of terminology, but may be realized as the capacity to understand mutually diverse ways of articulating the same faith. Faith communication understood in this way becomes the basis for a reality that might be called communio linguarum, that is, a communion of languages that does not abolish difference but transforms it into a space of encounter.

4. Ecumenical Dialogue as a Transformation of Theological Language

A hermeneutical account of theological language allows us to grasp its dynamic and relational character. Yet only the concrete practice of ecumenical dialogue shows how such a perspective can be realized. The dialogue documents of recent decades are privileged places for observing this transformation. They can be read not only as doctrinal or institutional texts, but also as testimonies to the transformation of the language of faith. It is precisely in them that the movement from a language of confrontation to a language of communion becomes visible.

From a Catholic perspective, a turning point in this process is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, especially the decree Unitatis redintegratio. This document not only addresses the question of Christian unity, but does so in a way that itself constitutes a significant linguistic change. Compared with earlier ecclesial discourse, often marked by apologetic and polemical tones, the Council employs a more relational language. The recognition that “many elements of sanctification and truth” are found outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church marks both a theological and a linguistic shift: other Christians are no longer described primarily in terms of deficiency, but in terms of real participation in the goods of salvation (Second Vatican Council 1964a, nos. 3–4).2

The conciliar direction was deepened in the encyclical Ut unum sint, in which the Pope presented ecumenical dialogue as an integral dimension of the Church’s life. Particularly significant is the shift from the language of static definitions toward the language of a shared journey. Unity is not presented here as the result of purely doctrinal agreements, but as a process in which the Churches learn mutual listening, conversion, recognition, and co-responsibility for Christian witness in the world (John Paul II 1995, nos. 28–35). In this context, theological language acquires a performative character: it not only describes the reality of faith, but also co-creates a space of relationship and trust.

A particularly clear example of the transformation of theological language is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999. It concerns one of the most fundamental and at the same time most conflictual issues in the history of Western Christianity. For centuries, the concept of justification functioned as one of the principal boundary words around which confessional identity was constructed in opposition to other traditions. The Declaration does not eliminate all differences in the understanding of this concept, but it makes a decisive shift: it shows that different ways of articulating justification need not be mutually exclusive if they are read in their proper theological context (Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, nos. 5, 13–15).

What is crucial here is not only the doctrinal agreement itself, but also the way it is expressed linguistically. The document employs formulas that allow the partners in dialogue to recognize a common core of faith while preserving distinct accents and interpretive traditions. The statement that the former mutual condemnations do not apply to the teaching presented in the Declaration is made possible by precise work on language, which discloses a deeper level of agreement (Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church 2000, nos. 40–41; cf. Mayer 2006, pp. 206–7). In this sense, the Declaration is an example of a hermeneutical reinterpretation of doctrinal language: differences are not ignored, but placed within a new horizon of meaning.

An especially instructive example is provided by Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today (2023), issued by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The document places the respective developments of sobornost’ and communio within a shared historical reconstruction and relates both to a conciliar understanding of the Church as communion. By rereading contested formulations within the ecclesial and political circumstances in which they arose, it shows how a common engagement with the sources can modify the interpretive framework of a disagreement without concealing the remaining differences (Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church 2023, nos. 0.3, 4.2–4.4, 5.1–5.2).

From a different institutional perspective, the study document The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, published by the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity (2024), gathers and evaluates the results of several ecumenical dialogues. Its proposal for a ‘re-reception’ of the teaching of Vatican I through renewed expressions and vocabulary provides a complementary example of how the logic of communio linguarum might operate: historically conditioned formulations are recontextualized so that their doctrinal intention may be preserved while becoming more intelligible within other ecclesial traditions (Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity 2024, nos. 64–69, 178). Here communio linguarum entails reconstructing the setting of contested formulas, distinguishing doctrinal intention from polemical reception, and testing whether renewed formulations can be recognized within different ecclesial grammars.

In analyzing ecumenical documents, however, it is necessary to distinguish a real transformation of understanding from a superficial linguistic compromise. The renewal of language does not consist in diluting content or in creating ambiguous formulas that make it possible to avoid difficult questions. Its aim is rather to deepen meaning by taking into account the context, history, and theological intentions of different traditions. Where an authentic hermeneutical encounter occurs, language does not lose precision; rather, it gains a new communicative capacity.

At the same time, one must remain aware of the limits of this process. Not all differences can be reinterpreted or integrated within a shared language to the same degree. There are issues that remain matters of real theological dispute and require further reflection. Even in such cases, however, the transformation of language can lead to significant progress: greater clarity, honesty, and mutual respect. The very overcoming of a language of suspicion and condemnation already constitutes an important step toward unity (Clifford 2024, pp. 30–31; Kempa 2021, pp. 59–60).

In light of this analysis, ecumenical documents can be understood as privileged spaces of transition from confessional language to communicative language. This does not mean the disappearance of identity, but its new understanding: as the capacity to express one’s own faith in a way that is intelligible and open to others. Such a transformation of language prepares the ground for a more systematic account of the problem of unity as communio linguarum, that is, a communion of the languages of faith.

5. From Confessional Language to Communio Linguarum

The preceding analyses have made it possible to grasp the historical conditioning of theological language, its hermeneutical dynamics, and the transformation taking place in ecumenical documents. Against this background, a more fundamental question arises: is it possible to conceive Christian unity in a way that does not reduce linguistic diversity, but theologically reworks it and incorporates it into a broader structure of communion? It seems that an adequate answer to this question can be found in the category of communio linguarum, understood as a communion of theological languages which—while remaining rooted in different traditions—would be capable of mutually recognizing, interpreting, and receiving one another as bearers of the same faith. Within this category, it becomes possible to affirm that unity does not require agreement within a single language, but leads to a community of languages of faith. The category of communio linguarum would not mean terminological unification or the creation of a single neutral ecumenical language. Such a project would be theologically problematic and culturally unrealistic. The language of faith always remains bound to the concrete history, liturgy, spirituality, and experience of a community (Danilovich 2017, pp. 20–21; Mayer 2006, pp. 211–12). Communio linguarum therefore does not presuppose the abolition of difference, but its transformation within communion. This transformation requires an ecumenical language that does not tacitly absolutize one ecclesiological grammar, but makes room for different ecclesial self-understandings to enter into dynamic relation with one another. In this sense, the communion of languages is not the reduction of plurality to a single idiom, but the creation of a shared space in which plurality can become mutually intelligible (Bouteneff 2009, pp. 357–58).

At this point it is worth referring to the idea of receptive ecumenism, developed above all by Paul D. Murray. Its basic intuition consists of shifting the emphasis from the question of what others should learn from us to the question of what we ourselves can receive with integrity from other Christian traditions. With regard to the problem of theological language, this means that different idioms of faith are not merely objects of interpretation or obstacles to be overcome; they can become places of ecclesial learning. Communio linguarum thus does not consist only in the mutual intelligibility of confessional languages, but also in a readiness to receive the gifts that have been preserved, developed, and transmitted through those languages. Reception understood in this way does not dissolve the identities of particular traditions, but leads to their deepening and purification in the perspective of fuller communion (Murray 2008, pp. 32–33; 2022, pp. 470, 475–76, 480; cf. Pizzey 2019, pp. 18–42).

A comparable intuition can be found in Dumitru Stăniloae’s notion of ‘open sobornicity’, which, like Murray’s receptive ecumenism, emphasizes the ecclesial capacity to receive valid theological insights from other Christian traditions without surrendering normative claims or collapsing difference into relativism (Neacșu 2024, secs. 2–4). In this respect, open sobornicity offers a close, though not identical, analogue to communio linguarum. Applied to theological language, it suggests that communion requires more than the coexistence of confessional idioms: each must remain open to clarification and enrichment through encounter with another.

The understanding of the category of communio linguarum outlined above indicates that it requires stronger grounding in the ecclesiology of communion. The communion of the Church is not uniformity, but the participation of many communities, gifts, and forms of life in the one salvific reality whose center is Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The conciliar vision of the Church as a sacramental reality, a “sign and instrument” of unity with God and of the unity of the whole human race (Second Vatican Council 1964a, no. 2; 1964b, no. 1; World Council of Churches 2013, nos. 13–18), allows theological language to be understood as one dimension of ecclesial communion. If the Church has a communion structure, then its language, too, cannot be understood solely as an instrument of differentiation, but as a space of participation, translation, and mutual recognition. In this sense, communio linguarum can be understood as the linguistic counterpart of the ecclesiology of communion. Just as the unity of the Church does not consist in abolishing the legitimate diversity of local and liturgical traditions, so the unity of theological language does not require reducing all idioms to a single formula. Rather, what is at stake is a form of mutual intelligibility through which different traditions are able to recognize, in different forms of expression, a reference to the same mystery of faith. This category is consonant with the ecclesiological intuition that diversity is not a threat to communion, but may be one of its constitutive dimensions, provided that it remains oriented toward a common center (cf. Ratzinger 1996, pp. 43–47; Zizioulas 1985, pp. 15–18; Congar 1984, pp. 37–42; Fuchs 2002, pp. 252–53).

The condition for the possibility of communio linguarum is a particular communicative practice. First, an attitude of prior listening is necessary, one that precedes the formulation of one’s own judgments. This means a readiness to accept that the language of another tradition is not merely an erroneous version of one’s own language, but possesses an internal coherence and meaning. Second, what is needed is the capacity for hermeneutical translation, which does not consist in the mechanical replacement of one set of terms by another, but in grasping the theological intention behind a given formula. Third, interpretive patience is indispensable, for it makes it possible to distinguish what is constitutive in a given language from what is a secondary historical or polemical conditioning.

These requirements can be translated into four practical operations. Dialogue partners first map key terms and the doctrinal, liturgical, and ecclesial functions they perform. Second, they reconstruct the controversies and practices that shaped those terms. Third, they judge whether a difference is a direct contradiction, a complementary emphasis, a divergent discipline, or different terminology. Fourth, they test whether a proposed common formulation can be confessed, taught, and received by the communities concerned. The practical criterion of communio linguarum is therefore not verbal sameness but reciprocal recognizability of the faith expressed through different languages (Mayer 2006, pp. 211–22; Fuchs 2002, pp. 268–71).

Several obstacles remain. The same word may function as a false friend in two traditions, while different words may conceal substantial convergence. The vocabulary of the stronger partner may be tacitly treated as neutral, making translation unilateral. A formula accepted by specialists may fail to enter preaching, catechesis, or ecclesial decision-making; conversely, deliberately elastic wording may postpone rather than clarify a real contradiction. Communio linguarum is credible only when translation remains reciprocal, differences are classified honestly, and the resulting language is capable of reception beyond the circle of experts (cf. Danilovich 2017, pp. 14–20).

In this context, the principle of the “hierarchy of truths” takes on particular significance. It can be read not only as a tool for ordering doctrinal content, but also as a criterion for discerning its linguistic articulations (Second Vatican Council 1964a, no. 11; Kasper 2004b, pp. 67–70; Pawłowski 2004, p. 43; 2005, pp. 173–76 & 180–81). If not all truths of faith stand in the same relation to the foundation of the Christian mystery, then not all forms of their expression have the same rank either. Communio linguarum therefore requires the capacity to recognize which elements of theological language are constitutive of faith and which are secondary and open to reinterpretation.

The proposal of a communion of the languages of faith nevertheless raises the question of the relationship between truth and communication. One may ask whether acknowledging a plurality of forms of expression leads to the relativization of truth. The answer requires overcoming the false alternative between the absolutization of a single formula and relativism. Christian truth is not identical with any single linguistic articulation; rather, it transcends each of them while at the same time remaining truly present in them. Different theological languages can participate in one truth without exhausting it completely (Tracy 1987, pp. 47–52; 1981, pp. 408, 423; Mayer 2006, pp. 212–15; Kempa 2022, pp. 131–32).

From the perspective outlined above, communio linguarum appears as a specific form of participation in truth, realized through dialogue, mutual reference, and interpretation. It is therefore not a merely methodological project, but a deeply theological one. It presupposes that the unity of the Church is not simply the result of human agreements, but a gift that calls for an appropriate form of expression. If theological language is to be adequate to this reality, it must become a language capable of receiving otherness without negating it, while remaining aware that it is itself a form of participation in a truth that cannot be fully expressed even in the most subtle concepts. The passage from confessional language to communio linguarum therefore does not mean renouncing identity, but deepening it. A tradition that is able to express its faith in a way intelligible to others and at the same time open to their interpretations manifests its vitality and inner strength (cf. Mayer 2006, pp. 216–22). Such a transformation of language is one of the conditions for the further development of ecumenical dialogue and leads to the question of its spiritual and ecclesial foundations.

6. Spiritual and Ecclesial Conditions of Communicative Unity

The renewal of theological language is one of the key conditions for the development of ecumenical dialogue. It would not be adequate, however, to reduce this process solely to the methodological, semantic, or institutional level. The language of faith arises within the life of the Church and remains linked to the spiritual condition of the communities that use it. The communicative unity of Christians therefore requires not only new interpretive categories, but also a particular form of ecclesial conversion.

The first condition is spiritual humility, understood as a readiness to acknowledge one’s own incompleteness. No Christian tradition exists outside history, culture, and language; consequently, no tradition expresses the mystery of faith in an entirely exhaustive way. This awareness does not undermine the authenticity of one’s own heritage, but frees it from the temptation of self-sufficiency. Where a community identifies the fullness of truth with the fullness of its own formulas, dialogue becomes unnecessary. Where, however, it recognizes that truth transcends it, a space opens for learning from others (cf. Second Vatican Council 1964a, nos. 7–8; John Paul II 1995, no. 82; Fuchs 2002, p. 270; Kasper 2004a, pp. 3–5).

The second condition is the purification of confessional memory. Many theological concepts carry not only doctrinal meaning, but also the weight of past conflicts, mutual accusations, and entrenched stereotypes. Words can be bearers of historical wounds. The renewal of language therefore also requires the work of memory: the capacity to recognize critically how past disputes continue to shape contemporary ways of speaking about faith. Without such purification, old antagonisms will be reproduced even when the desire for unity is officially declared (John Paul II 1994, nos. 33–35).

The third condition is the practice of common witness. Theological language is renewed not only in documents and dialogue commissions, but also in actions undertaken together by Christians of different traditions. When communities cooperate for peace, social justice, the protection of creation, or the defense of human dignity, their language of faith is tested in practice. Common action often discloses a deeper level of unity than the one visible in terminological disputes. It also lends the language of faith greater credibility before a secularized world for which confessional disputes are often incomprehensible or irrelevant (cf. John Paul II 1995, no. 40; Halík 2009, pp. 3–12, 121–26; Składanowski 2019, pp. 115–16).

The fourth condition remains common prayer and spiritual listening to the Word of God. Christian faith communication is not exhausted by an exchange of arguments, because its source is not reflection alone, but the event of revelation. Where Christians gather around Scripture, learn to pray, and mutually recognize an authentic desire for fidelity to Christ, language ceases to function only polemically. It becomes instead the language of shared expectation, hope, and thanksgiving. Even where full sacramental communion remains unattainable, a real experience of spiritual closeness is possible, preparing the ground for further theological rapprochement (Second Vatican Council 1964a, no. 8; John Paul II 1995, nos. 21–27).

The fifth condition is ecclesial maturity, understood as the ability to distinguish what is constitutive from what is historically conditioned. Churches that mature toward dialogue learn to recognize that not every inherited form of polemic belongs to the essence of faith. Such maturity makes it possible to preserve identity without ideologizing it. It also opens the possibility of the creative development of tradition, which is not the museum-like preservation of old formulas, but the living transmission of the Gospel in changing cultural contexts (Clifford 2024, pp. 26–27).

In light of the foregoing, communicative unity is not an addition to the unity of the Church, but one of its essential dimensions. A Church that is unable to communicate faith in a way that is mutually audible within its own divided history weakens the credibility of its witness before the world. Conversely, where Christians learn to speak truthfully, humbly, and intelligibly to one another, a certain form of communion is already being realized.

7. Conclusions

The point of departure for this article was the conviction that the problem of Christian unity is not only a doctrinal or institutional problem, but also a problem of language. The analysis of the historical function of theological language has shown that for centuries it has been an important instrument in the formation of confessional identity, while at the same time it has reinforced boundaries and mutual misunderstanding. Differences between Churches were expressed not only in divergent claims, but also in different idioms of faith.

The hermeneutical perspective, inspired by the thought of Gadamer and Ricoeur, has made it possible to present theological language as a space of a dynamic event of meaning. Meaning is not enclosed once and for all within a definition, but is disclosed in the process of interpretation, encounter, and mutual reference. Such an approach, however, requires theological correction: both Lindbeck’s cultural–linguistic model and Ricoeur’s concept of the surplus of meaning remain inspiring for ecumenism, but they are insufficient without reference to the truth of revelation, the rule of faith, and ecclesial reception.

The analysis of selected ecumenical documents confirms that the transformation of language is not merely a theoretical postulate. Unitatis redintegratio and Ut unum sint exemplify a broader movement from condemnation to recognition and from confrontation to communion. This dynamic assumes more specific forms in later texts: the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification situates historically opposed formulations within a differentiated consensus; Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today reframes the relation between primacy and synodality through a shared contextual rereading of historical sources, without concealing the remaining asymmetries; and The Bishop of Rome, as a Catholic study document informed by ecumenical dialogue, illustrates the possibility of a renewed reception of inherited doctrinal formulations. Together with the procedural conditions identified above, these examples demonstrate that language is not merely an instrument for describing unity but one of the places where unity is realized. Communio linguarum thus functions not as a metaphor for plurality, but as a disciplined practice of semantic discernment, reciprocal translation, and ecclesial reception.

Against this background, the category of communio linguarum has been proposed as a model of unity understood not as the uniformization of formulas, but as a communion of languages capable of mutually recognizing the same faith. A stronger grounding of this category in the ecclesiology of communion makes it possible to avoid two extremes: the confessional closure of language and the relativistic dispersal of meanings. The communion of the languages of faith does not abolish difference, but incorporates it into the structure of participation in one truth and in the one mission of the Church.

Ultimately, the future of ecumenism depends not only on new doctrinal agreements, but also on the shaping of a new culture of faith communication. Where Christians learn to speak about God in a way that is truthful and mutually audible, language ceases to be a sign of division and becomes a space of encounter. In this sense, the renewal of theological language is not a secondary task, but one of the fundamental dimensions of the path toward unity.