Much of Ecumenism is just the "revolutionary mentality", as defined by Olavo de Carvalho, applied to world religions and the Church in particular.
The reason why ecumenists can say such politically incorrect things and get away with it while traditionalist papists can't is that they are on the "right" side of the line: supporting ideas and values that would eventually converge to a "revolution" of the world. It's the same reason why Cuba and Iran criminalize homossexualism and get away with "cultural relativism", but if a Christian expresses his personal opinion that homossexualism is disgusting (even not being violent) than he's a bygot.
Olavo de Carvalho uses the expression in a restrict sense, not in the generic concept of "revolution". He defines it in these two articles:http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/articles/124-the-revolutionary-mentality.htmlhttp://www.theinteramerican.org/commentary/191-more-on-the-revolutionary-mentality.html
Here's a summary of the articles:
The revolutionary mind is a perfectly identifiable and continuous historical phenomenon, whose developments over five centuries may be traced in countless documents. This is the subject of an investigation that has occupied me for several years now.
The revolutionary mind is not essentially a political phenomenon, but a spiritual and psychological one, though its field of expression and its fundamental instrument is political action.
To make things easier, I use the expressions "revolutionary mind" and "revolutionary mentality" in order to distinguish between the concrete historical phenomenon, with its varied manifestations, and the essential and permanent characteristic that enables one to grasp its unity throughout time.
The "revolutionary mentality" is the permanent or transitory state of spirit in which an individual or a group believes himself capable of remodeling the whole society – if not human nature in general – through political action.
Socialism and Nazism are not revolutionary because they propose supremacy of a social class or of a race, but because they turn these goals into principles for a radical remodeling not only of the political order, but of all human life.
That is why it must be stressed that the meaning here given to the term "revolution" is at once more encompassing and more precise than the one generally attributed to it by historiography and by the current social sciences. Many socio-political processes usually called "revolutions" are not actually "revolutionary", because they do not partake of the revolutionary mentality, they do not aim at the total remodeling of society, culture and the human species, but work only to modify local and momentary situations, ideally for the better.
What truly characterizes the revolutionary movement is that it imposes the authority of a hypothetical future on the judgment of all the human species, present or past. By its very nature, the revolution is totalitarian and universally expansive: there is not a single aspect of human life that it does not intend to submit to its power, there is no region of the world where it does not wish to extend the tentacles of its influence.
1. A revolutionary does not understand injustice and evil as factors inherent in the human condition that can be attenuated but not eliminated, but rather as temporary anomalies created by a segment of humanity—the bourgeoisie, the Jews, Christians, etc.—which can be identified and punished, thereby extirpating the root of evil.
2. The guilty segment of mankind spreads evil and sin by exercising a power—economic, political, military, and cultural. Hence, it must be eliminated by means of a superior power, the revolutionary power, deliberately created to achieve this purpose.
3. The revolutionary power, like the Biblical God, “makes all things new.” There are no limits to the range and depth of revolutionary action.
4. The demand for proof (of the need for the total remodelling of society) is automatically impugned as a subterfuge for avoiding change and condemned ipso facto as an element to be eliminated. The revolution is its own foundation and cannot be questioned from the outside.
5. The crimes and mistakes of a fallen leader, not imputable to the future society, nor to the revolutionary process as such, nor to the revolutionary movement as a whole, can therefore only be explained as a residual effect of the condemned past: a revolutionary, by definition, sins only by not being sufficiently revolutionary.