A publication about the activities of the Centro Pro Unione “UT OMNES UNUM SINT” Digital Edition C ENTRO P RO U NIONE Semi-Annual Bulletin A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement Centro Pro Unione Web https://bulletin.prounione.it E-mail bulletin@prounione.it In this issue Petros Vassiliadis 7 Robert Gribben Methodists and Sacraments `Centro Conferences 3 James F. Puglisi, SA `Letter from the Director 2 N T Wright 14 22 `A Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues Thirty-first Supplement (2016) The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: Problems and Its Ecclesiological Significance `Centro Conferences The Church as the People of God `Centro Conferences 2532-4144 Digital Edition ISSN N. 89 - Spring 2016 E-book2 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin DIRECTOR'S DESK Centro Pro Unione Bulletin A semi-annual publication about the activities of the Centro Pro Unione The Centro Pro Unione in Rome, founded and directed by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, - www.atonementfriars.org - is an ecumenical research and action center. Its purpose is to give space for dialogue, to be a place for study, research and formation in ecumenism: theological, pastoral, social and spiritual. The Bulletin has been pubblished since 1968 and is released in Spring and Fall. IN THIS ISSUE Letter from the Director EDITORIAL STAFF bulletin@prounione.it Contact Information Via Santa Maria dell'Anima, 30 I-00186 Rome (+39) 06 687 9552 pro@prounione.it Website, Social media www.prounione.it @EcumenUnity CENTRO PRO UNIONE A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement N. 89 - Spring 2016 Fr. James Puglisi, SA – Director Centro Pro Unione James F. Puglisi, SA Director Centro Pro Unione Spring 2016, n. 89 / Digital Edition (Web) ›Robert Gribben ›Petros Vassiliadis ›N T Wright ›Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues (Thirty-first Supplement / 2016) ›Beatification Cause Servant of God Paul Wattson of Graymoor n this issue of the Bulletin we will offer the texts of two of the major talks given as well as the latest number of the International Bibliography of Theological Dialogues. On April 6 th, the new Ecumenical Office of the World Methodist Council was inaugurated at the Ponte Sant’Angelo Methodist Church. To mark this event, the Centro had invited Dr. Robert Gribben, Chair of the Standing Committee for Ecumenical Relationships of the World Methodist Council to offer his reflections of “Methodists and Sacraments”. In this talk he illustrated the progress that the Catholic-Methodist International Dialogue has made on the topic of liturgy. Since the final report of the last round of dialogue will deal with spirituality, it was appropriate to illustrate the convergences in the area of worship. In view of the celebration of the Panorthodox Synod, the Centro invited Prof Petros Vassiliadis to give the eighteenth annual lecture in honor of the Servant of God, Fr. Paul Wattson, SA and Mother Lurana White, SA. Prof. Vassiliadis is Professor emeritus of the Department of theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and he was one of the theological consultants in the preparation of the synodical material for the Ecumenical Patriarch. The text of his lecture is reproduced in this Bulletin. As is the custom, the Centro Pro Unione and the Lay Centre at Foyer Unitas organized the annual celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. This year Bishop N.T. Wright honored us with a very profound presentation on one of the major themes of the Second Vatican Council, the People of God. His lecture “The Church as the People of God” is printed here in this issue of the Bulletin. Bishop Wright takes a deep look at ecclesiology from a Biblically rich perspective that opens new perspectives on the understanding of this fundamental theme which the Council employed in its understanding of the Church. Two events will conclude the Spring lectures. The first is an afternoon of study on the status of Jerusalem. Prof. Marshall Breger who is professor at the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America will speak on “The Legal and Political Situation of the Holy Places Today”. This lecture will be followed by Prof. Daniel Seidemann who is Founder and Director of Terrestrial Jerusalem. He will speak on “Religious Radicalism and the Christian Minority in Jerusalem”. The second event will take a look at some of the recently released documents in view of the coming Pan- Orthodox synod. Finally we publish the thirty second supplement (2016) of the Bibliography of Interchurch and Interconfessional Theological Dialogues compiled by Dr. Loredana Nepi. While this supplement covers material from 2015 one can always consult the daily up-dated bibliography on line. Remember to continue to look at our new websites (http:// www.prounione.it and http://webtv. prounione.it) for news and activities of the Centro Pro Unione. This Bulletin is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Libra- ry Association, 250 S. Wacker Drive,16th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (www.atla.com). I3 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 Methodists and Sacraments Robert Gribben - Professor emeritus of Worship and Mission, The Uniting Church Faculty of Theology, Melbourne, Aus- tralia, Chair of the Standing Committee for Ecumenical Relationships of the World Methodist Council Robert Gribben – Professor emeritus of Worship and Mission, Melbourne, Australia In 2011, the co-chairs of the Roman Catholic-Methodist dialogue presented a report which they called Synthesis, of the first 40 years of their deliberations. The wonderful thing about it is the huge amount of basic theology on which we are agreed, a conclusion which Cardinal Kasper endorsed in his Harvesting the Fruits. However, throughout the text, there are paragraphs in italics, indicating issues on which further work needs to be done. in the section on the Eucharist, there are five (out of 13). Curiously there are none on Baptism. That section ends with Catholics and Methodists give full recognition to each other’s celebration of baptism. Our common baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is our sacramental bond of unity, the visible foundation of the deep communion which already exists between us and which impels us to ever deeper unity with each other and participation in the life and mission of Christ himself. (94) Baptism Methodists baptize. Of course, we all know that, though as profound a ‘bond of unity’ as the paragraph above says it is, that is only the beginning, because almost all Christian churches add some other acts which seriously limit what baptism promises, at least ecumenically. Methodists inherited Anglican confirmation practice, though what that meant in the 18th C, John Wesley’s time, was hardly best practice. (There are stories of a bishop halting his horse at a cross- roads, the village children of age being assembled beneath him, he confirmed them from the saddle. I am sure that this was not typical, even if some Methodists believe it was so.) What developed in its place (and was the case in my youth) was that in early teenage years, we attended a series of classes led by our Minister, and were ‘received into full membership’ during Sunday worship. Both the ecumenical and the liturgical movements led Methodists to adopt the word ‘confirmation’, not least because of our rediscovery of the significance of baptism: we were ‘full members’ of Christ and his Church from our baptism. Mr Wesley was afraid that his people, especially as their thrift turned into comfortable wealth, would forget the vitality of the religion they had learned from him. They often did. Methodists became middle class, and polite, and formal. Baptism became a social ritual, and a very tame one: no Romans chapter 6 drowning implied there! Many a Methodist child was merely dampened into the kingdom. That applies to most of the historic Protestant churches, and it has to be said that Catholic ritual (including the Anglican form of it) was a strong negative influence. By God’s good grace, that situation has largely, but not entirely, changed. The authorized services, the liturgies, have been enriched in word and action, but there is still the challenge of re-educating the clergy, and there is sentimentality, which often sells the Gospel short. Of course, baptism is not about children, a lesson which Methodists need to learn both liturgically and missionally. Given the increased secularity of western cultures, fewer babies are presented for baptism, which means that if we were doing our job of preaching the good news, adult baptism would now be the norm - it clearly isn’t. All this in the face of the fast-growing evangelical and pentecostal churches throughout the world, who preach and act for conversion, and use plenty `Prof. Robert Gribben (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 22 October 2015)4 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 of water in baptism! The minimization of symbol means that Methodists have not used anointing in baptism or confirmation, despite its popularity in healing services, but also in aromatherapy and New Age rituals. It appears in some of our rubrics as a possibility, and a few ministers have taken it up with enthusiasm. A recent Catholic-Methodist dialogue report has encouraged Methodists to experience how Catholics worship (and vice-versa), which puts both of us on our best behaviour. I hope the Methodists will learn more and more about your beautiful catechumenate, and recover the deep sense in which ritual can mark the spiritual journey. Methodist sacraments then and now At this point I need to address a wider question. If you look to John and Charles Wesley for the model of Methodism, you will find perhaps the best practice of the 18th century Church of England: they took the church’s liturgy seriously and carried it out accordingly. John Wesley loved the early Church fathers, and adopted some of their practices when he was a pastor in America. After their deaths, most of the Methodists remained close to the Church of England, still as a society, now governed not by one man but by a Conference. Their eucharistic devotion was soon in tension with the number of ordained priests available to preside at the Methodists’ enthusiastic celebrations, and they were less and less welcome in their local parish church. Several groups (e.g. New Connexion, Primitive Methodists) broke away because they did not like Anglican ways and they desired greater democracy in church government. It was not until 1836 that the now Wesleyan Methodist Church (the main group) began to ordain for the sacramental ministry. But by this time there was pressure from another direction. In the Church of England, the ‘Oxford Movement’ had begun which promoted the ancient apostolic roots of that Church, and (later) with it, a greatly increased ritualism. In some ways, Wesley’s Methodism had anticipated it. One of its leaders, Dr Pusey, actually wrote to the Methodist leadership inviting them to rejoin the Church of England, but by then the division was too wide. At this time too there arose a general movement within Protestantism (both in Britain and America) called Revivalism, whose main aim was the conversion of souls. 1 They therefore made direct appeal to their listeners to respond to a call to faith, usually not in church buildings, but in tents or the open air. As Revivalism developed, it realised that the appeal would be more effective if it ignored the doctrinal and liturgical practices which divided the churches. Charles Wesley’s hymns, for instance, were far too intellectual and dogmatic - better to sing more emotional choruses and songs. The idea was that the converts would choose a congregation to belong to, and learn the other parts of the faith there. The problem was that many Protestant churches adopted the revivalist techniques in order to grow their congregations, but they minimized what holds the church together: its Tradition. This explains why Protestants in general, and many Methodists, are still so wary of symbol and sacrament, of academic sermons and ordered forms of worship. There has been much recovery of a more balanced view of these things in the late 20th century, but there is a long way to go yet. Eucharist What Synthesis says of the Eucharist - a word increasingly used in Methodism, but still regarded by some with suspicion - is very positive. It asserts, ‘Methodists are increasingly recognizing that the Lord’s Table belongs to the fullness of Christian worship, and Catholics are appreciating the fundamental important of the preaching of the Word’ (96). If you look to the Wesleys, this is a strange thing to say. Before the nickname ‘Methodist’ stuck (because of the strictness of their attention to their spiritual rule), Wesley’s early followers were called ‘sacramentalists’ - as a criticism. They received communion at a much higher frequency than the Church of England required. The number of churches and chapels in Oxford allowed the students to receive at least weekly, which is what Wesley recommended. He himself, it has been calculated, received communion about four times a week over his 88 years of 1 At the same time, a pan-Protestant spirit of unity arose, which set aside doctrinal disputes in order to be able to work together. In 1846, the Evangelical Alliance was formed as an expression of this cooperation. `Participants take part in Prof. Robert Gribben's conference. Robert Gribben – Professor emeritus of Worship and Mission, Melbourne, Australia5 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 life. John Wesley was a strongly eucharistic Christian, and intended his followers to be so. But in the 19th century, the practice of frequent communion faded for Methodists. The normative pattern these days is probably monthly. There has also been a move to a liturgy which truly unites word and sacrament; an inherited practice was for those who did not wish to receive communion to depart after the Word service. Revivalism may be responsible for another Methodist issue: the ‘open Table’. When Revivalists used the term ‘altar-call’ for the moment when sinners were called to repent and accept Christ as Saviour, it was an echo of the call to come to the communion table. As the altar lost its significance, and the invitation to ‘all who wish may come’ was made, the eucharistic link was also lost. The general Methodist view became that anyone may come to communion, of any Christian tradition or none, and in any state of grace. True, our services usually include a General Confession, but admission to communion under John Wesley was to penitent sinners who desired, in his terms, ‘to flee from the wrath to come’. He called the sacrament a ‘converting ordinance’, because he saw that people who were invited to come, being ready to receive God’s forgiveness and grace, were indeed converted at the eucharist. His own mother claimed such a moment. But the norm was that non-members of a Methodist society were examined by the Superintendent Minister, and if the right spirit was discerned in them, they received a member’s ticket which admitted them to the Table. There has been a major debate on this matter in the United Methodist Church, whose invitation to communion is as follows: Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another. This is a long way from inviting anyone to come on a whim. A treasure which the Methodist tradition has, though it diminishes with every new hymn book, is the corpus of eucharistic hymns by Charles Wesley. They have always fought to be recognized in normal worship, but they represent a definitive strand in Wesleyan tradition. Let me read just one, a brilliant eight lines. I am going to read it in an altered form which is intended to deal with the problem of archaic English (thee, thou): Come, Spirit blest, your influence shed, and realise the sign; your life infuse into the bread, your power into the wine. Effectual let the tokens prove and made, by heavenly art, fit channels to convey your love to every faithful heart. Of course, it has not escaped 18th century English. Wesley writes of the eucharistic sign be ‘realised’, by which he meant ‘made real’: the ‘tokens’, the bread and wine are not mere tokens; they are divinely transformed. I need also to acknowledge a RomanCatholic doctrine which was popularly rejected while not being fully understood - and the prejudice lingers and affects our sacramental and wider liturgical practice: ex opere operato . As you well know, that it was the Council of Trent’s attempt to preserve the initiative and action of God in the sacraments: that, whoever the celebrant or the recipient might be, God gives the grace he has promised. This was (mis)understood by Protestants in general as a claim that sacrament worked automatically, or worse, by magic: say the right words with the right elements and whatever you believe, grace follows. The Protestant spirit wishes to protect the integrity of the individual, and in the 18th C, the importance of personal experience. This has its dangers too, making ‘feeling’ too important. But in Methodism, and others, it created a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ about sacramental efficacy. You dare not claim too much for the performance of a sacrament. Right words guarantee nothing; it is the spirit in which you do these things which is grace-giving. This is to argue over a false contrast. Now let me read a paragraph from Synthesis: Methodists and Catholics affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This reality does not depend on the experience of the communicant, although it is only by faith that we become aware of Christ’s presence. Christ in the fullness of his being, human and divine, crucified and risen, is present in the sacrament. This presence is mediated through the sacred elements of bread and wine. Within the eucharistic celebration become the sign par excellence of Christ’s redeeming presence with his people. To the eyes of faith, they now signify the Body and Blood of Jesus, given and shed for the world. As we take, eat and drink, and share the bread and wine, we are transformed into him. The eucharistic bread and wine are therefore efficacious signs of the Body and Blood of Christ. (100). The next paragraph is in italics, recognizing that we differ in the way in which we speak of the bread and wine. Roman Catholics do not claim that the physical and chemical composition of the bread and wine are changed, but they do believe that their inner reality (or ‘substance’) become that of the body and blood. Methodists affirm that the bread and wine acquire additional significance as effectual signs of the body and blood of Christ, but they have been reluctant to explore the manner of any change. (101, part) The dialogue acknowledges that there is Robert Gribben – Professor emeritus of Worship and Mission, Melbourne, Australia6 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 movement on both sides, and that entrenched positions are open to fresh consideration. Indeed, par. 101 says that ‘Methodists do not generally reserve the elements but reverently dispose of them’, but there is more to be said. In some places, bread and wine are taken from a eucharistic celebration in a congregation and taken immediately to housebound people and the sick who request it, and have prepared themselves to receive communion. And there are a variety of ways of disposing of the elements after the service, some more reverent than others, but Methodists are learning that what they regard as mere practicality involves matters of faith and devotion for others. Means of grace Methodists again share with their Protestant Reformation sister churches the recognition of baptism and eucharist as ‘gospel sacraments’, but gladly embrace a number of what might be called ‘para-sacraments’ which account for Rome’s other five. If Methodists knew more about present-day Catholic thinking of these, the distinction would be even less. Ecumenical liturgical theology has linked baptism, confirmation/ chrismation and eucharist almost as a unity, though made up of distinct parts and in different sequences. Catholic teaching that anointing with oil would be recognized as a valuable pastoral tool with the sick (and not for the dead). Reconciliation, personally with a pastor, has always been a possibility though only recently given a liturgical form; indeed confessing one’s sin in a small group goes back to Methodist origins. And ordination, always involving, with others, a President of the Conference, has been observed as a solemn succession in the passing-on of an apostolic ministry, and has recently been the basis on which the Anglican and Methodist churches in Ireland have accepted each others’ ministries, the Methodists having received episcopal, as well as their own, laying-on of hands. The final paragraph of Synthesis offers some appropriate words for us to end on. The words actually occur in the very first dialogue report we ever produced - at Denver in 1971: We know only too well that the latter stages of the ecumenical dialogue are more formidable than the early ones, requiring of us redoubled efforts and devotion, not merely to the work we have to do together, the joint witness to the great Christian values that we must give and widely promote in our Churches, but to the tasks of educating our people and communicating to them something of the joys and inspiration that have been vouchsafed to us.’ (189) There is indeed more to learn and discover from each other: may the Lord bless us on our journey together. `Rev. & Mrs. Robert Gribben, Rev. & Mrs. Tim Macquiban Robert Gribben – Professor emeritus of Worship and Mission, Melbourne, Australia 7 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 Prof Petros Vassiliadis – Professor Emeritus at the Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church Poblems and Its Ecclesiological Significance Prof Petros Vassiliadis - Professor Emeritus at the Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece (Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 10 December 2015) XVIII Annual Conference in honor of 'Servant of God' Father Paul Wattson and Mother Lurana White It is a great honor for me and a special privilege to speak to such a renowned ecumenical institute as the PRO UNIONE, celebrating this year the 50 years from the Second Vatican Council. A special word of gratitude is also due to the Society of the Atonement, the Founders of which, the Franciscans Fr. Paul Wattson and Mother Lurana White, have been a shining example to all Christians committed to the unity of the Church, following our lord’s command “that we may all be one” (John 17:20-21). It will not be an exaggeration to say that the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES), which I preside, follows the example of the Society of the Atonement, in its effort to promote the ecumenical awareness. Driving force toward this vision in the Church of Greece, for more than two decades was the late Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Panteleimon Papageorgiou (1902- 1979), our spiritual father and a close companion of the visionary Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras. To revitalize his vision and further contribute to the ecumenical cause, a number of academics, as well as some of his direct or spiritual relatives, established in his name the aforementioned Center. Our focus this academic year, as a humble contribution on our part, the Orthodox academics, ecumenists, missiologists and environmentalists, was our Orthodox Church’s titanic effort toward her Pan-Orthodox Synod next year. And it was for this reason that I accepted with pleasure my brother Jacob Puglisi’s very kind invitation to give this year’s lecture on “The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: Problems and its Ecclesiological Significance”. Obviously its importance is not only for the Orthodox world but for all Christians. I will start with some preliminary remarks (1); then I will move (2) to the pre-history (a), the history, (b) its preliminary stages (c), the issues to be decided (d) and the procedural principles (e) of this unique for the Orthodox world event; I will then (3) refer to the problems (a), some fears, hesitations and even reactions in certain “Orthodox” circles (b), and few optimistic expectations (c); and I will end with its ecclesiological significance, if any (4). | Some preliminary remarks From the very start of the process toward this synod the title proposed and finally accepted was that of a Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, not an Ecumenical one. Such a title is reserved only for the entire Christian world, at least when participation of the Catholic Church is secured. That decision was not a novel one, but was based on the long canonical and ecclesiological tradition of the entire Eastern Christian tradition, according to which no bishop has ever been installed on a city that originally belonged to the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. This is because the Orthodox never considered the separation, and consequently loss of communion, between East and West, between the Old and the New Rome, as being in a real state of a schism. The Orthodox, in addition, always gave preeminence to synodality, over against the necessary primacy, in ecclesiological matters. This idea was intensified after the complete separation between East and West, sometimes reaching the extreme and completely denying the importance of a primus in local, regional and universal level. One can look at the discussion that is still going on about the primus as an honorific title (primus inter pares) and the primus sine paribus. Even the Eucharistic ecclesiology, which has made after Vatican II a tremendous impact on ecumenical discussions - and today is the methodological tool of the `Prof. Petros Vassiliadis welcomed by Centro's Director, Fr. James Puglisi, SA8 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue - at its earlier stages (e.g. in Afanassiev) developed as to exclude altogether the idea of a primacy. In my talk today I deliberately use the term Synod, and not Council (synodical, and not conciliar), in order to underline the authoritative nature of this event; despite the fact in English the two terms have the same meaning. The forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Synod will be a “synod” of binding significance, equal to the 7 Ecumenical, not just a council of theological deliberations. As such - and this is my last preliminary remark - its ultimate goal cannot be other than “the union of all”. Despite the fact that there will be no thorough theological analysis on the nature of Church unity, the quest for unity permeates the most important documents to be discussed and decided upon. | A. The pre-history of the Pan-Orthodox Synod The Pan-Orthodox Synod, according to Metr. Hilarion, is important in that, after the era of ecumenical Synods, it will be the first one representing today all the canonical (recognized) Orthodox Churches. For the last 12 centuries, there were councils of various levels attended by representatives of various Churches, but this one will be the first Pan-Orthodox Synod to be convened in modern era. There is, however, a pre-history, to which I now turn. The last synod of the Orthodox Church of this scale was convened again in Constantinople more than a millennium ago, to reinstall Photius to the Patriarchal throne. Just fewer than 400 hundred bishops attended it from almost all Christian Churches in the East. Having to deal also with a dividing the East and the West issue of a dogmatic character, the filioque, this synod became the first major conciliar meeting in the East that unlike the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox focused not on the unity of the whole Church of Christ, but on the dogmatic peculiarities of the Orthodox world. Some Orthodox count it as the 8th Ecumenical, and together with another one in the 14th century that rehabilitated St. Gregory Palamas and his teaching (counted as the 9th), believe that they both represent an authentic point of reference of the Orthodox faith. Officially, however, the Orthodox Church consider as Ecumenical only 7 Synods. It is not without significance that all consecrated bishops give to this very day an oath to follow and protect the Bible and only 7 Ecumenical Synods. Along with the 879 Synod the Eastern Orthodox Church continued exercising its synodality with the famous institution of the endemousa synod, a synod consisting of all the residing in Constantinople bishops and even Patriarchs of the East. This endemousa synod used to manage ecclesial matters not only of the local Church of Constantinople but of the entire Eastern Church. After all, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and New Rome, had historically (since at least the fifth century) coordinated such assemblies, facilitating unity, while at the same time serving as a center of appeal among all Orthodox Churches. | B. The history of the Pan-Orthodox Synod The real history of the Synod started early in the 20th century, when the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III felt again the duty to reunite the Orthodox Churches that lost contact among themselves, despite holding the same faith. Because of the apparent disarray and ecclesiological irregularity the Orthodox Churches started discussing the possibility of convening a Pan-Orthodox Synod. In 1923 with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire Constantinople called an inter-Orthodox assembly to pave the way to a real Pan-Orthodox Synod. There were several attempts to convene such an event in the interwar period, but they were all unsuccessful, mostly because the Russian Church was isolated and suffered severe persecutions. The Orthodox Churches returned to this idea after World War II, despite the fact that in the meantime other Orthodox Church in the Balkans suffered similar with the Russians repression. At this crucial moment WCC, at its peak in that period, played a catalytic role serving as a safe forum which helped Orthodoxy to be reunited, especially after 1961 when the entire Orthodox Church (with the exception of Albania leaving under extreme atheistic regime) officially joined the council. The event, however, that rekindled the idea of a Pan-Orthodox Synod was the corresponding synodical process of the Catholic Church, Vatican II, which really inspired the Orthodox to accelerate the process of preparation for their Pan-Orthodox Synod. Inter-Orthodox pre-conciliar consultations, very instrumental in the preparation process, started taking place at Rhodes early in 1960s (1961, 1963, 1964), and in Geneva in 1968. These consultations were succeeded by a Pan-Orthodox commission and Pre-conciliar consultations, which took place from the 1970s and up to the 1980s. The 3rd pre-conciliar consultation (1986) promulgated almost all the important documents with ecclesiological and ecumenical significance. No further progress was made after the 3rd pre-conciliar consultation, mainly because in the 1990s and in the 3rd millennium, and up to the convocation decision, the general theological discussion was overwhelmed by the great success of the official theological dialogue with the Catholic Church, and particularly the primacy issue, still is opposed by the Russian Church. After the elevation to the throne of Constantinople of Patriarch Bartholomew a second (after the endemousa) conciliar institution filled the gap of the Orthodox Church’s synodality: the Synaxis of the Primates of all the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches. Although an unprecedented institution in the canonical history of the Church, this semi-synodical instrument proved extremely important and effective. Gleaning from the pre- conciliar process and its unanimously agreed decisions, this institution gave the Church a common voice to the pressing problems of modern era. It was in the 5th and last such Synaxis, meeting in Constantinople (March 6-9, 2014) that was finally agreed that a Pan-Orthodox Synod be at Prof Petros Vassiliadis – Professor Emeritus at the Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece9 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES N. 89 - Spring 2016 last convened. A “Communiqué of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches” released on March 9th stated that “the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church…will be convened and presided by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople in 2016”. God willing it was scheduled to be held in the Church of Haghia Irene, the site of the 2nd Ecumenical council of 381, which completed the “creed” recited by most Christians today. Now a museum, Haghia Irene has never been converted into a mosque after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. To be honest, only if some unforeseen circumstances do not prevent it, will this long awaited Synod take place. | C. The preliminary stages of the Pan-Orthodox Synod The 2014 Synaxis agreed that each Autocephalous Church will be represented by her Primate accompanied by 24 bishops, a number doubled from 12 bishops, plus the Primate, which was agreed in the midway. Because some Orthodox Churches do not have so many bishops, they will be represented by all their bishops. The initial idea to allow these Churches to “borrow” bishops from other Churches was abandoned. Since, however, all Churches will have only one vote, the number of the participating bishops does not matter at all. All the sessions will be presided over by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Most analysts and commentators insist that these decisions were the result of compromises achieved through very tense negotiations between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow. The Patriarch of Moscow, with over 320 bishops in his Church, initially suggested that all Orthodox bishops should participate in the Synod. The majority of the Churches rejected this proposal, not because this would give the Russian Church a distinct advantage, but for practical reasons and the lack of parity among all the autocephalous Churches. After all, the one Church-one vote decision of the Synaxis overrules such an argument. However, as Fr. John Chryssavgis, one of Patriarch Bartholomew’s advisors, put it, “it is naïve to dismiss disagreements among various churches sweepingly, implying that these merely result from rivalries of power”. The roadmap towards the Synod included a pre-synodical inter- Orthodox preparatory committee - unfortunately without so far a single Orthodox woman theologian - which started work in September 2014 and will probably be in charge up to the opening of the Synod. The committee’s most important assignment was the updating of most of the 1986 documents of the Geneva pre-conciliar consultation and the finalization of a couple of others, in addition of course to dealing with the details of its procedures. It was also authorized to quickly intervene if difficult issues arise in inter-Orthodox relations during the period up to the Synod. | D. The themes of the Pan- Orthodox Synod The issues for discussion and decision at the Synod were determined long ago. The original long list included items, such as the diptychs, a common calendar, and even a common celebration of Easter, as well as many others, such as the canon of the Bible, a fuller participation of the laity in the life of the Church etc. When in the 1980s the last item (on lay participation) was deleted from the list, after pressure for obvious reasons by Churches then under communist rule, this pre-synodical process saw a strong reaction and the withdrawal of John Karmiris, the most prominent Orthodox dogmatic theologian of the time. In short, from the longer list only 10 themes were dealt with: The Orthodox Diaspora, autocephaly, autonomy, the diptychs, the Church calendar, the canonical impediments to marriage, fasting, the relations with the other Christian Churches, the ecumenical movement, and the mission of the Church to the world. On all these themes an equal number of documents were drafted. Now the final list is further reduced to 8, because only on these have all Orthodox Churches unanimously agreed upon. These documents `Students' presence in the conferece hall, a historical gathering place for the chronicled conciliar meetings in the city of Rome, since the Vatican II Council. Prof Petros Vassiliadis – Professor Emeritus at the Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, GreeceNext >