One of the presentations of CTE`s Europe Day, on 15 November 2011, was by Very Revd John Arnold, former Dean of Durham and one of the architects of the Porvoo and Meide Agreements. This overview of the history of ecumenical relations, the two agreements and their accession in England and Europe is followed by a bibliography. It will be useful to all those interested in the development of the ecumenical world in recent years. The modern Anglican-Lutheran dialogue began in 1909 with talks between the Church of England and the Swedish Church, followed by Finland in 1933-34 and Estonia-Latvia in 1936-39 on the eve of their illegal accession to the Soviet Union. The starting point and setting were the lambeth quadrangle of 1888 (the Scriptures, Catholic denominations, the sacraments of the Gospel and the apostolic service, including the historical episcopate). It is this fourth leg that makes the quadrilateral lambeth more solid than the three-legged stool of Protestant ecumenism (Writing, Creed and Sacraments) – but of course, a four-legged chair twitches when either the legs are unevenly long or the ground is uneven, while a three-legged stool is stable in all circumstances. After the Second World War in 1947, the scope was extended to churches in Norway, Denmark and Iceland, resulting in a mutual invitation to communion agreement in 1954. The result of these separate agreements was that, in the 1950s, the Church of England distinguished the Nordic Churches who did not do them among themselves, what it represented and bringing a regional group of remarkably homogeneous national folk churches, with many common characteristics and a high degree of communion and communion. The creation and maintenance of formal agreements with partner churches, including: The declaration of marks an important step in the growth towards the full visible unity of the Church. But this is only a scene, because the joint federal policy of the German churches (Luthean, United and Reformed) has proved to be an obstacle to an agreement on the succession of the ephocration. «Because of this residual difference, our mutual recognition of another`s ministries does not yet lead to perfect interchangeability of ministers.» (para. 16).
He adds: «But even this difference, if viewed in the light of our agreements and our cover relations, cannot be seen as an obstacle to greater communion between our Churches. (ALERC, 43). We welcome this «closer communion,» but beyond that, there is a step towards full recognition of both the churches and the ministries in the broader perspectives of the universal Church. «One of Meisen`s goals is the full unity visible between our churches. This goal has enabled the development of meaningful relations between our two churches at all levels and remains a model for other ecumenical agreements. The reminder of this initiative, which led to the signing of the Agreement, is an important reminder that churches are sometimes called to set the agenda and take the lead on issues of unity and reconciliation. Over the years, parishes and dioceses have created living partnerships and exchanges between them have been fruitful. Our churches and people have learned to look at their faith and the life of their parish with other eyes.