CENTRO PRO UNIONE N. 47 - Spring 1995 ISSN: 1122-0384 semi-annual Bulletin In this issue: Letter from the Director...................................................p. 2 The Porvoo Common Statement from the Lutheran Point of View and the Statement's Significance for Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue by John Vikström..................................................p. 3 A Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues: Tenth Supplement (1995).............................................p. 8 Centro Pro Unione - Via S. Maria dell'Anima, 30 - 00186 Rome, Italy A Center conducted by the Franciscan Friars of the AtonementDirector's Desk The Spring issue of the Bulletin contains the tenth supplement of the Centro's on going bibliographic project of gathering and classifying material concerning the official interchurch and interconfessional theological dialogues. In addition to the supplement, we have the pleasure of offering the text of the Most Rev. John Vikström, Lutheran Archbishop of Turku and Finland, who spoke in November on the implications of the recent Anglican/Lutheran Porvoo declaration for the dialogues between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. This conference was co-sponsored by the Centro and the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Other activities of the Centro during the Fall and Winter months include: in December, the Centro co-sponsored with the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas, a talk given by Dr. Kilian McDonnell entitled “The Conversations which Should not Have Taken Place: The Classical Pentecostal/Roman Catholic Dialogue”. This text was recently published in One in Christ 31 (1), 1995, pp. 20-31. In January, the St. Olaf College (Lutheran) from the USA spent three weeks at the Centro studying religion and culture in Italy under the direction of Dr. Eric Lund. Our Fr. David Fitzgerald addressed the group on issues of sacramental theology in the contemporary Catholic Church. In February, we had the annual visit of the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey accompanied by Fr. Francis Frost, Catholic tutor on staff. In April, the Centro will offer three programs, two conferences and a concert. Dr. Konrad Raiser will speak on “The Joint Working Group between the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church 1965-1995: Its Contribution to the Ecumenical Movement”, Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright will speak on “Do Methodists (Think They) Stand in the Apostolic Tradition”. Lastly as a musical interlude the Centro is happy to offer a concert of classical music from the 1600 and 1700's played on instruments from this period. The chamber orchestra of the “Accademia Serguej Diatchenko” will be under the direction of Maestro Serguej Diatchenko. We are in the final phases of completing the computerization of the Bibliography of theological dialogues. By the end of this year all of the material which we have published in the Bibliography and the ten supplements will be fully accessible on line at the library. In the near future we will likewise be able to offer this material through the services of Internet since the network that the Centro belongs to (U.R.B.E.) will be available throught the Internet services. Look for further details in our next Bulletin. In the Fall of 1994 we entered into a “consociation” with the Graduate Theological Foundation (Indiana, USA), an educational institution granting the M.Div, D.Min and Ph.D degrees. The Consociation is an associational relationship between these separate and fully independent institutions for the purpose of sharing mutual programmatic interests in the areas of ministry education and ecumenical dialogue. This means that qualifying graduate students can now earn up to 6 graduate credits by taking our Summer Course (June 26 to July 14th, 1995). For more information please contact us. To all of our friends and colleagues we would like to wish you all a pleasant Summer and if your plans include a visit to Rome please stop by the Centro. James F. Puglisi, SA DirectorN. 47 / Spring 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 3 CC Centro Conferences The Porvoo Common Statement from the Lutheran Point of View and the Statement's Significance for the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue by John Vikström Archbishop of Turku and Finland Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Friday 18 November 1994) Introduction The Porvoo Common Statement is an ecumenical document between the British and Irish Anglican churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches, which aims at a very close fellowship between these churches. The inter-church agreement which is a goal of the Statement is to be implemented as soon as two of these churches —one from both denominations— have signed it. So far (i.e., by 31 st October 1994), the Statement has been approved by the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Church of Sweden, and the Scottish Episcopal Church. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the Synod is discussing the statement and will make its decision on the matter next year. For our church, the Porvoo Common Statement marks and ecumenical turning point. Never before has our church approved and ecumenical document the significance of which (both in principle and in practice) is as profound as is that of the Porvoo Common statement. Therefore, the Statement will also be of significance as regards the relations of our church to other churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. The Background of the Statement The Porvoo Common Statement was drafted at a relatively brisk pace. This was possible because of the several earlier Anglican-Lutheran agreements and other Anglican-Lutheran ecumenical documents, which provided the basis for the construc- tion of the Porvoo Common Statement. Among these documents are the Pullach Report of Conversations between the Lutheran World Federation and the Lambeth Conference, the Helsinki Report of the European Commission on the Anglican-Lutheran Dialogue, the Cold Ash Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Joint Working Group, the Meissen Common Statement between the Church of England and the Evangelical Church of Germany, the Niagara Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope, and the document called Toward Full Communion and Concordat of Agreement (American Lutheran-Episcopal Dia- logue). In addition to these Anglican-Lutheran agreements, the Faith and Order documents Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) and Confessing the One Faith have had an impact on the Porvoo Common Statement. To some extent, the same can be said of conversations between the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Church, as well as of discussions between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. In addition, the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches have had previous agreements with the Church of England. As early as in the last century, the Church of Sweden had advanced furthest in these relations. In 1936, however, also the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland signed an agreement with the Church of England, and on the basis of this agreement these two churches have practiced mutual admission to communion and participated reciprocally in episcopal consecrations. The outcome of the negotiations —that is, the document which was accepted on 13th October 1992— was named the Porvoo Common Statement, because the common celebration of the eucharist in connection with the process of acceptance of the Statement took place in Porvoo Cathedral, which dates back to the Middle Ages. The Porvoo Common Statement had been drafted and completed within an amazingly short period of time; namely, the negotiations only took about three years. From the point of view of theological substance and ecumenical significance, however, the outcome of these negotiations is a document which certainly can compare with the results of many negotiations of longer duration. The Ecumenical Method of the Porvoo Common Statement In recent decades, ecumenical methodology has been a subject of lively debate and study. At the heart of the matter have not been the more or less technical questions of procedure, which, admittedly, are also important in ecumenical dialogue. Rather, what are referred to as ‘ecumenical methods' are the various theological approaches which are applied in ecumenical dialogue. The questions related to ecumenical methodology can be made more concrete through the following questions: What are the historical and theological fundamentals of our ecumenical work?4 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 47 / Spring 1995 What kind of model of unity is our work based on? What are the doctrinal issues we must agree upon? In our communion, what kind of diversity is acceptable? What is the ultimate goal of our efforts, and what is the concrete aim of this particular document? What are the consequences of our agreement? Nowhere in the Porvoo Common Statement is it said explicitly what the ecumenical method (methods) used in the document is (are). However, on the basis of the structure and content of the actual text of the Statement, it is possible to draw some conclu- sions concerning the ecumenical method used in it. Firstly, the Porvoo Common Statement gives expression to the common understanding concerning the nature and unity of the Church (II A 14). This unity has already begun to make itself visible in the Church. However, it demands fuller visible embodi- ment in structured form. The unity given to us in Christ is a sign, instrument and foretaste of the Kingdom of God. On this basis, it is said in the document that all existing denominational traditions are provisional (II B 22). These kinds of expressions in the Porvoo Common Statement show that on the question of the understanding of the unity of the Church, the churches involved attempt to reach a consensus which is to gain visible form as well. This consensus is about the understanding of the Church and its ministry, which are discussed in chapters II and IV of the Statement. The document represents koinonia ecclesiology, the essential content of which is, firstly, the life of the Church in communion with the Holy Trinity, and, secondly, the communion between churches and Christians based on the above-mentioned communion (II A and B). Secondly, in addition to the consensus which finds expression in chapters II and IV, the partners' agreement concerning the content of the Christian faith is expressed in chapter III. This chapter gives expression to the actual doctrinal consensus of the partners; this consensus is, in fact, a confession containing the partners' common doctrinal understanding. The central paragraph in chapter III, namely, §32, contains sub-paragraphs which express this confessional character through phrases such as “we accept... we believe... we confess”. What is presented in these subparagraphs is the fundamental, substantial agreement in faith. It is based on the confessional traditions of both partners, on one hand, and on the results of bi- and multilateral ecumenical work, on the other hand (III 29-30). Thirdly, the Porvoo Common Statement repeatedly states that the consensus or agreement which has been reached must not be identified with uniformity. “Visible unity, however, should not be confused with uniformity. ‘Unity in Christ does not exist despite and in opposition to diversity, but is given with and in diversity'” (II B 23). According to the Statement, not only the unity of the Church but also its diversity has its roots in the Holy Trinity: “Both the unity and the diversity of the Church are ultimately grounded in the communion of God the Holy Trinity” (II B 23). The maintenance of unity and the sustaining of diversity both belong to the life of the Church (II B 24). “Unity needs a visible outward form which is able to encompass the element of inner differentiation and spiritual diversity as well as the element of historical change and development” (II B 26). It is apparent in the light of these and several other phrases referring to diversity that also the model of ‘reconciled diversity' has been applied in the Porvoo Common Statement. This diversity between the two denominations will remain in the sense that the partners are not required to “accept every doctrinal formulation characteristic of our distinctive traditions”; on the other hand, however, the reconciliation of this diversity “does require us to face and overcome the remaining obstacles to still closer communion” (III 33). Thus, what is involved here is not merely an agreement upon differences; diversity is to be reconciled, too. The model of reconciled diversity comes to the fore especially in connection with the question of episcopacy, in relation to which the section on doctrinal consensus mentions a ministry of pastoral oversight (episkopé), exercised in personal, collegial and communal ways (III 32.K). This consensus is explicated more thoroughly, in accordance with the model of reconciled diversity, in chapter IV, which is called “Episcopacy in the service of the apostolicity of the Church”. The Porvoo Common Statement makes use of a kind of “combined method”, which seeks to take seriously both doctrinal consensus and reconciled diversity. Thus, the doctrinal consensus concerned is expressed in quite a full form — instead of first, briefly, introducing a kind of “basis” or “expression”. In this sense, the Porvoo Common Statement differs from the method used in the Leuenberg Concordat. The Model of Unity in the Porvoo Common Statement The model of unity in the Porvoo Common Statement finds expression, firstly, in the concept of visible unity, which occurs repeatedly in the document (e.g., Foreword, §§6, 11; II, 23, 27; III, 29; IV, 54; V, 60). Visible unity is defined and confined in the document in the following manner: 1) The point of origin of visible unity is the faith that the unity of the Church “belongs by necessity to its [the Church's] nature” (II, §21), because “the unity of the Church is grounded in the mysterious relationship of the persons of the Trinity” (ibidem). Therefore, communion between Christians and churches is not a “product of human achievement” but is “already given in Christ as a gift to be received, and ‘like every good gift, unity also comes from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit'” (II, §21). This formulation of the nature of the unity of the Church, which is a very classic one, is closely linked to the results achieved in the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission, as indicated by footnotes 5,6, and 7 in the Statement. According to the Porvoo Common Statement, the unity of the Church is given, and therefore the document also speaks of the “restoration” and “recovery” of unity (“...this will be a very significant contribution towards restoring the visible unity of Christ's Church”; Fore- word, §11; “Churches... are obliged by their faith to work and toN. 47 / Spring 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 5 pray for the recovery of their visible unity”; II, §27). 2) As I have mentioned earlier in a preliminary fashion, visible unity must not be confused with uniformity. Unity and diversity do not stand in contradiction to each other, but unity “is given with and in diversity” (II, §23). Thus, diversity is not the same thing as disunity (cf. II, §22), which Christians “can never tolerate” (II, §27). Unlike disunity, diversity “corresponds with the many gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church” (II, §23). Viewed in this light, diversity is not to be regarded as a “mere concession to theological pluralism” (II, §23). Therefore, not only unity but “both the unity and the diversity of the Church are ultimately grounded in the communion of God the Holy Trinity; II, §23). 3) The Porvoo Common Statement distinguishes between the concepts of visible unity and full communion. In fact, the term ‘full communion' is not used in the document at all (the only exception being the quotation of a resolution of the Eighth Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation in Curitiba in 1990; III, §31). Both visible unity and full communion still lie ahead of us. They are goals towards which both partners believe to be going. Therefore, the following expressions are used in the document: closer unity (V, title), closer visible unity (IV, §54), and closer communion (V, §60). Visible unity is still the goal towards which the partners are going. The Porvoo Common Statement is an expression of new steps on the way to visible unity (“We are now called to a deepening of fellowship, to new steps on the way to visible unity ...”; III, §29). The consensus expressed in the document concerning the Church and its ministry, especially the laying on of hands and episcopal succes- sion, means that the unity and continuity of the Church is made more visible “at all times and in all places” (IV, §53). However, as these formulations indicate, even after the approval of the Porvoo Common Statement there will still remain —in the churches of both traditions— the kind of diversity which these churches must seek to overcome in the future (Foreword, §9, referring to the Porvoo Declaration). The Elements of Unity The structure and the content of the Porvoo Common State- ment reveal what kinds of things are considered as prerequisites for and elements of the emergence of closer unity. These are 1) a common understanding of the nature and unity of the Church (chapter II), 2) agreement concerning the content of faith (chapter III), and 3) a consensus concerning historical episcopacy and episcopal succession as a servant of the apostolicity of the Church and as a sign of the unity and continuity of the Church (chapter IV). As for point 1), enough light has already been shed on it in the previous section. As regards the content of faith and episcopacy, however, it still remains to be asked what the significance of these questions, in addition to the model of unity, is within the entirety of the Statement. Especially from the point of view of my church and its (Lutheran) confession, the content of the Statement's chapter III (“What we agree in faith”) is of essential importance. Namely, this section actually gives expression to that which, from the point of view of faith, is necessary and sufficient for the unity of the Church (cf. The Augsburg Confession, article VII). I am not sure whether the twelve sub-paragraphs in paragraph 32 in chapter III can be regarded as a “common Anglican- Lutheran ‘Confession of Faith'”, as Georges Tsetis, the represen- tative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in its permanent delegation to the WCC, phrased it in his letter of 29th March 1994 to Eugene Brand, the Assistant General Secretary of the Ecumenical Affairs in the Lutheran World Federation. What paragraph 32 is about is the “substantial agreement in faith” (III, §30), which is a summary (concentrating only on that which is most necessary) of the consensus of the both partners on the content of our faith. Neither the Lutheran nor the Anglican side has felt it necessary to say anything more, because these traditions have never condemned each other in matters of the content of faith. This applies particularly to the doctrine of justification, on which there is no separate section in the document. The concept of justification of the sinner by grace alone, for the sake of Christ alone, and by faith alone, which is inalienable to the Lutheran side, is given valid and sufficient expression in chapter III, §32c (which is the sub-paragraph on the gospel) and, in fact, even earlier in chapter II, §§15-16. The partners' agreement concerning faith has been expressed in the following loci which involve both doctrine and practice: a) The Scriptures as the sufficient source of doctrine; b) The question of God's will, commandment and grace. To express this in the language of Lutheran tradition, the issue involved here is the law and the gospel; c) The gospel, justification, faith and love; d) The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Apostles' Creed; the Trinitarian and the Christological dogma; e) Liturgical worship; f) The Church; g) Baptism, infant baptism and confirmation; h) The Lord's Supper (eucharist). The true presence of the body and blood of Christ. The eucharist and sacrifice. The meaning of the eucharist; i) The priesthood of all members of the Church, and their participation in the apostolic mission of the Church; j) The ordained ministry. The oneness of the ordained ministry and its threefold character; k) The ministry of pastoral oversight (episkopé), its different manifestations, and its function to safeguard the apostolicity of the Church. The episcopal office as a sign of the continuity of the Church; l) A common hope in the final consummation of the Kingdom of God, and work for justice, peace an integrity for creation; Not everything that is included in our common faith is expressed in this presentation of the “substantial agreement in faith”. So much of it, however, is articulated here that Lutheran confession challenges us to ask the following question: What else,6 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 47 / Spring 1995 in fact, is needed for the fulfillment of the satis est which the Augsburg Confession demands (CA VII)? From the Lutheran point of view, it is difficult to think, after this, of any remaining theological obstacles related to the content of faith which would hinder us from acknowledging that our churches have achieved unity. There may be other reasons, though —liturgical, historical, cultural, etc.— for which it is not appropriate to attempt to establish a uniform Anglican-Lutheran church, not even after the approval of the Porvoo Common Statement. Theologically speaking, however, the Porvoo Common Statement means emergence of such communion whose “fullness” is very near. Episcopacy in the Service of the Apostolicity of the Church From the Anglican point of view, the most important obstacle to the rapprochement between the Anglican and the Lutheran churches has been, up till now, certain deficiency in the episcopal office of most Lutheran churches. In accordance with the Lambeth Quadrilateral, the Anglican church has considered historical episcopacy and episcopal succession as being of such importance for the essence of the Church that this question has determined for a great deal the pace at which Anglicans have taken their new ecumenical steps. The Porvoo Common State- ment brings to this problem a new model of solution. In its solution to the problem of the ministry of oversight, the Statement does not simply “give way” to the so-called presbyteral ordination and succession. Instead, the Statement sets out to consider the ministry of oversight on the basis of something that is even wider and more fundamental, and belongs to the essence of the Church, namely, apostolicity. “The primary manifestation of apostolic succession is to be found in the apostolic tradition of the Church as a whole” (IV, §39). However, the manifestation of the apostolicity and continuity of the Church consists of several “threads”. These are “witness to the apostolic faith, proclamation and fresh interpretation of the Gospel, celebration of baptism and the eucharist, the transmission of ministerial responsibilities, communion in prayer, love, joy and suffering, service to the sick and needy, unity among the local churches and sharing the gifts which the Lord has given to each” (IV, §36; this is a direct quotation from BEM, Ministry, §35). Of these “threads”, the Statement brings to the fore especially the ministry of pastoral oversight (episkopé), which can be exercised “in personal, collegial and communal ways”. According to the Statement, this kind of ministry of oversight is “necessary” as a safeguard of the apostolicity and unity of the Church. All these three manifestations of oversight are important. It is said in the Statement that nowadays communal oversight, in particular, takes synodical form in most of the churches con- cerned (IV, §44). From the point of view of Lutheran churches, this remark is of special importance. We do not regard the communal oversight that takes place through ecclesiastical councils (in which the majority of the members are representa- tives of the laity) and through the synod (which guides the church as a whole ) as an alternative to the episcopal office. Rather, these two belong together in the apostolicity of the Church, and complement each other. Also the personal ministry of oversight, as well as its historical succession and continuity, are discussed in the Statement within the framework of this entirety. To ordain a bishop in historic succession through the laying on of hands is a sign of the apostoli- city of the Church (IV, §50). The fact that some of the churches concerned have not previously used this sign is not an obstacle to the establishment of fellowship. By their approval of the Porvoo Common Statement, the churches involved agree together to make use of this sign, which is understood as a means of making the unity and continuity of the church more visible at all times and in all places (IV, §53). While stressing historical episcopacy and its continuity as a form of the personal ministry of oversight and as a sign of the apostolicity of the church, the Porvoo Common Statement does not, however, raise episcopacy to the same position which belongs to the word and the sacraments, or make it a third “pillar”; such a thing would not be acceptable from the point of view of Lutheran confession. In interpreting episcopacy as a sign which serves the apostolicity of the Church —or even “safe- guards” and “ensures” it (III, §32k), but does not “guarantee” it as such— the Porvoo Common Statement does not give rise to the above-mentioned problem, which, thus, is not an obstacle to the approval of the Statement. The Consequences of the Statement for the Churches Concerned Indeed, the Porvoo Common Statement has consequences for the churches which have approved it; chapter V of the Statement, which contains the so-called Porvoo Declaration, shows what these consequences are. The Declaration, which is composed of two parts, consists of six “acknowledgements” and ten “commit- ments”. In these acknowledgements and commitments, the churches signing the Porvoo Declaration acknowledge one another's churches as belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge that preaching and the sacraments are valid in one another's churches, and they also acknowledge one another's ordained ministries as given by God as instruments of his grace (NB: “instruments”, not “means of grace”). Moreover, they acknowledge that one another's minis- tries of personal, collegial and communal oversight in their different forms are valid, and acknowledge one another's episcopal office as a sign serving the unity and continuity of the Church. In addition to these acknowledgements, the Declaration of these churches contains ten commitments, the realization of which will, indeed, have many practical consequences for the life of the churches concerned. What these commitments mean is an almost complete reciprocity in the lives of the members of these churches, and in these churches' ministries. What remains for the churches to carry out after the signing of the Porvoo CommonN. 47 / Spring 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 7 statement is the challenging task of changing their laws and other ecclesiastical regulations, so as to make these correspond with the commitments in the Declaration. However, the true goal of the Porvoo Declaration is not be reached until its commitments change the lives of these churches, too. The Significance of the Declaration for Lutheran-Roman Catholic Relations It is said in the Porvoo Common Statement with emphasis that the Statement seeks to be an ecumenically open document. It is not the intention of the Statement to create unity that would be exclusive in regard to these churches' other ecumenical relations. The Statement as a whole has as its conclusion a section called “Wider Ecumenical Commitment” (V, §C). In the light of this section, it is readily apparent that the churches signing the document do not aim at emergence of an Anglican-Lutheran “bloc” which would wish to isolate itself from others. At the same time it is obvious, however, that the Porvoo Common Statement and its content must be taken into account in the other ecumenical relations of the churches involved. This also applies to their relations to the Roman Catholic Church. A natural point of comparison to the Porvoo Common Statement is provided by the recently completed outcome of the third stage of the work of the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission. It has recently been published as a document called Church and Justification, which has been sent to the churches concerned for their response. Even though these two documents are different in character, one can still examine their mutual compatibility. However, in this context it is not possible to carry out a detailed comparison of the documents; hence, what follows is merely a brief and general characterization. 1. As for the ecumenical “spirit” of the documents, the Porvoo Common Statement and “Church and Justification” are very much of the same kind. Both seek to take substantial theological questions seriously. In these documents, minimization of doctrinal questions is not regarded as a way of creating inter-church fellowship. 2. Ecclesiology occupies a central place in both of these documents. Moreover, in them both the perspective from which ecclesiology is presented is that of communion ecclesiology. 3. It is only natural that in Lutheran-Roman Catholic relations the doctrine of justification occupies a more central place than is the case in the Porvoo Common Statement. Namely, in Lutheran- Anglican relations problems have not emerged in the domain of justification, whereas in Lutheran-Roman Catholic relations this very issue has been perhaps the most important subject of controversy. 4. Both documents also deal with the ministry of the Church. From the Lutheran point of view, this questions has constituted an ecumenical problem in Lutherans' relations to both Anglicans and Roman Catholics. In the Porvoo Common Statement, the solution found to the problem of ministry, especially episcopacy, is such that this question will no longer divide these churches. We hope that this consensus might also promote the process in which solutions are sought to the problems related to the ministry of the Church also in Lutheran-Roman Catholic and Anglican-Roman Catholic relations.8 Bulletin / Centro Pro UnioneN. 47 / Spring 1995 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF INTERCHURCH AND INTERCONFESSIONAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUES Tenth Supplement - 1995 ABBREVIATIONS FOR CONFESSIONAL FAMILIES CHURCHES AND COUNCILS A.................................... Anglican B..................................... Baptist C................................ Congregational CEC................... Conference of European Churches CCEE ............ Council of European Episcopal Conferences CWC .................... Christian World Communions D.............................. Disciples of Christ DOMBES........................ Groupe des Dombes E.................................. Evangelicals FO............................... Faith and Order H................................ Hussite (Czech) L............... Lutheran (includes German ‘Evangelische') M .................................. Methodist Mn .................................. Mennonite Mo .................................. Moravian NCC ......................National Council of Churches O........................ Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) OC................................. Old Catholic OO................ Oriental Orthodox (N ON -C HALCEDONIAN ) Pe................................. Pentecostal R ................................... Reformed RC............................... Roman Catholic TAIZÉ............................ Council of Youth U............................... United Churches W.................................. Waldensian WCC....................... World Council of Churches LIST OF DIALOGUES A-B / usa (nc): North Carolina Baptist-Episcopal Dialogue A-B / usa (sb): Episcopalian-Southern Baptist Dialogue A-L: Anglican-Lutheran International Conversations A-L / eng-g: Representatives of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), and of the Church of England A-L / eng-nordic regions: Representatives of the Nordic countries and of the Church of England A-L / eur: Anglican-Lutheran European Regional Commission A-L / usa: Episcopal-Lutheran Dialogue in the USA A-M: International Anglican-Methodist Dialogue A-Mo: Anglican-Moravian Dialogue A-O: Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission A-O / usa: Anglican-Orthodox Theological Consultation in the USA A-OC: Anglican-Old Catholic Theological Conversations A-OC / north america: Anglican-Old Catholic North American Working Group A-OO: Anglican-Oriental Orthodox Dialogue A-OO / copt: Anglican-Coptic Relations A-R: Anglican-Reformed International Commission A-RC: Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) A-RC / can: Canadian Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue Commission A-RC / eng: English Anglican-Roman Catholic Committee A-RC / f: Groupe mixte de travail anglican-catholique en France A-RC / usa: Joint Commission on Anglican-Roman Catholic Relations in the USA A-RC / usa (la): Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Los Angeles A-RC / usa (lna): Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Louisiana B-L: Baptist-Lutheran Dialogue B-L / d(g): Gesprächskommission zwischen dem Bund Evangelisch- Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland und der Vereinigten Evangelisch- Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands B-L / ddr(g): Theologische Gespräche zwischen dem Bund Evangelisch- Freikirchlicher Gemeinden und dem Bund der Evangelishen Kirchen in der DDR B-L / usa: Dialogue between the Lutheran Council in the USA and the North American Baptist Fellowship B-M-W / italy: Baptist-Methodist-Waldensian Relations in Italy B-O: Baptist-Orthodox Exploratory Discussions B-RC: Baptist-Roman Catholic International Conversations B-RC / usa (sb): Southern Baptist-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the USA ( FORMERLY :Baptist-Catholic Regional Conferences in the USA) CEC-CCEE: Joint Committee of Conference of European Churches and Council of European Conferences CLAI: Latin American Council of Churches CWC: Christian World Communions - Bilateral Forums D-O: Disciples of Christ-Orthodox Dialogue D-R: Disciples of Christ-Reformed Dialogue D-RC: Disciples of Christ-Roman Catholic International Commission for Dialogue D-U / usa: Disciples of Christ-United Church of Christ Dialogue in the USA DOMBES: Dialogues des Dombes E-RC: Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission FO: Faith and Order Commission L-L / g: Inter Evangelical-Lutheran Relations L-M: Lutheran-Methodist Joint CommissionN. 47 / Spring 1995Bulletin / Centro Pro Unione 9 L-M / d(g): Lehrgespräch zwischen Evangelisch-methodistischer Kirche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und West-Berlin (EmK) und der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands (VELKD) L-M / ddr(g): Theologische Gespräche zwischen dem Bund der Evangelischen Kirchen und der Evangelisch-methodistischen Kirche in der DDR L-M / usa: US Lutheran-Methodist Dialogue L-Mn / f: Entretiens luthéro-mennonites en France L-O: Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission L-O / g-cp: Theologisches Gespräch zwischen dem Ökumenischen Patriarchat und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland L-O / g-r: Theologischer Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland L-O / (d)g-rus: Bilateraler Theologischer Dialog zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland [Arnoldshain 1959-91] L-O / (ddr)g-rus: Theologischer Dialog zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und dem Bund der Evangelischen Kirchen der DDR [Sagorsk 1974-91] L-O / g-rus: Theologischer Dialog zwischen der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland [1992- ] L-O / sf-rus: Theological Conversations between Representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church L-O / usa: Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the USA L-O-R / f: Dialogue between Representatives of the Inter-Orthodox Bishops' Committee in France and the Protestant Federation of France L-OC / ddr(g): Gespräch zwischen der Vereinigten Evangelisch- Lutherischen Kirche in der DDR und dem Gemeindeverband der Altkatholischen Kirche in der DDR L-OC-R / d(g): Gesprächskommission zwischen dem Rat der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland in Absprache mit der Arnoldshainer Konferenz und der Vereinigten Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands und dem Katholischen Bistum der Altkatholiken in Deutschland L-OO / copt: Dialogue between the Coptic Evangelical and Coptic Orthodox Commission L-OO / g: Unofficial theological meetings between representatives of the EKD and the Oriental Orthodox Churches L-OO / india: Dialogue between the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Lutheran Churches in India L-Pe / sf: Lutheran-Pentecostal Dialogue in Finland L-R: Lutheran-Reformed Joint Commission L-R / ra: Dialogue between the Evangelical Church of the Rio de la Plata and the Evangelical Congregational Church of Argentina L-R / usa: Lutheran-Reformed Conversations in USA L-R-RC: Joint Roman Catholic-Lutheran-Reformed Study Commission on "The Theology of Marriage and the Problem of Mixed Marriages" L-R-RC / f: Comité mixte de travail catholique-protestant en France L-R-U / eur: Lutheran-Reformed Conversations in Europe L-RC: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission L-RC / aus: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Australia L-RC / can: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Canada L-RC / g: Joint Commission of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) and the German Episcopal Conference L-RC / india: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in India L-RC / jap: Roman Catholic-Lutheran Joint Commission in Japan L-RC / n: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Norway L-RC / s: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Sweden L-RC / usa: Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the USA M-O: Methodist-Orthodox Dialogue M-R: Methodist-Reformed Dialogue M-RC: Joint Commission of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council M-RC / eng: English Roman Catholic-Methodist Committee M-RC / usa: Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Methodist Council in the USA O-O: Inter-Orthodox Relations O-OC: Joint (Mixed) Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Commission O-OO: Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches O-OO-RC: Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic Relations O-OO / syr: Dialogue between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Syrian Orthodox Church O-R: Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue O-R / ch: Commission de dialogue entre la Fédération des Églises protestantes de la Suisse et les Églises orthodoxes en Suisse O-R / rus: Dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Russian Orthodox Church O-RC: Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church O-RC / ch: Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Switzerland O-RC / f: Comité mixte catholique-orthodoxe en France O-RC / g: Gemeinsame Kommission der Griechisch-Orthodoxen und der Römisch Katholischen Kirchen in Deutschland O-RC / rus: Theological Conversations between Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church O-RC / usa: Orthodox-Roman Catholic Bilateral Consultation in the United States O-U / aus: Conversations between the Uniting Church in Australia and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in Australia OC-R-RC / ch: Old Catholic-Reformed-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Switzerland OC-RC / eur: Old Catholic-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Europe OC-RC / north america: Joint Commission of the Polish National Catholic Church and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops OO-OO: Inter-Oriental Orthodox Relations OO-RC: Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Relations OO-RC / copt: Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Joint Commissions OO-RC / india: Joint Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of India OO-RC / india: Malankara Jacobite Syrian Orthodox-Roman Catholic Joint Commission OO-RC / usa: Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the USA Pe-RC: Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue PNCC=OC / north america R-RC: Roman Catholic-Reformed Joint Study Commission R-RC / a: Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Reformed Church in Austria R-RC / b: Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Reformed Church in Belgium R-RC / ch: Evangelisch/Römisch-katholische Gesprächskommission (Switzerland) R-RC / nl: Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed Church in the Netherlands R-RC / scot: Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland R-RC / usa: Roman Catholic-Presbyterian Reformed Consultation in the USA RC-U / aus: Working Group of the Roman Catholic Church and the Uniting Church in Australia RC-U / can: Roman Catholic-United Church Dialogue Group in Canada RC-W / italy: Roman Catholic-Waldensian Relations in ItalyNext >