Thanksgiving Prayers of Hippolytus

Sunset: The close of a day & the hope for tomorrow

The beginning of a New Year is often a time also for us to give thanks to God:  thanks for all of the blessing of the year which is ending, and if the year has not been particularly prosperous, thanks that the year is ending and a new year and a new chance are beginning!  In either case it is a good time for offering thanksgiving to God, the Creator of the universe and of time.

Below are two thanksgiving prayers written by one of the best know Christian writers of the 3rd Century,the Hieromaryty Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235 AD).  Among his writings are these two thanksgiving prayers:

“We give thanks, O God, and we offer You the first fruits, which you have given us to enjoy, nourishing them through Your word, commanding the earth to bring forth her fruits for the gladness and the food of men.  For all these things we praise You, O God, and for all things wherewith You have blessed us, who for our sakes does give every creature different fruits.  Through You Servant Jesus Christ, our Lord, through whom You are Glorified forever.  Amen.”

A day worth remembering is a time for thanksgiving.

“We give You thanks, O God, because You have enlightened us by revealing the incor-ruptible light.  So we, having finished the length of a day, and having come to the beginning of the night, satisfied with the light of the day that You created for our satisfaction; and now since by Your grace we lack not a light for the evening, we sanctify You and glorify You.  Through Your  only Son our Lord Jesus Christ in whom You are glorified together with Him, be glory and might and honor with the Holy Spirit, now and ever.  Amen.”

Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (4)

This is the 4th and final blog in this series in which I am reflecting on  the Keynote Address of Metropolitan Jonah to the 2010 Canadian Archdiocesan Assembly regarding the Episcopal Assembly.  The first blog is Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (1) and the previous blog:  Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (3).  I’m not going to repeat the Metropolitan’s entire address, but I will quote the specific portions of his speech which on which I’m offering my own reflections.  You can read the entire speech at the above mentioned link. 

[MJ}:  We will have to decide some key value questions: whether participation in the movement towards Orthodox unity in North America is more important to us, or whether we simply stand fast on our autocephaly, our institutional identity, even to the point of exclusion. We need to evaluate whether unity with the other communities will foster or hinder our missionary task. We have to evaluate what kind of context and direction for the future will best foster that mission.

I would agree that these are issues WE in the OCA must discuss.   The problem occurs when the Metropolitan moves unilaterally without regard for those holding positions of leadership in the conciliar structures of the OCA (the Synod of Bishops, Metropolitan Council, chancery staff, for example).   Not nearly enough has been done regarding this discussion and that is why it is foolhardy to demand that the OCA follow one path.   We need to engage in this discussion before we enter into discussions with the other jurisdictions.   If anything that has been the failure of the OCA, we have not articulated a clear vision for ourselves.   Only now are we in a position to engage in this conciliar discussion.  The time for it has come; so let us not thwart that process by entering into agreements with those Orthodox outside the OCA.  We need to discuss and even debate our vision, our purpose, our mission, and our direction.   This whole process internally has hardly even begun and yet the Metropolitan without regard for the conciliar process engages in discussion on these issues with the greater Orthodox world.

He also posits a false opposition between autocephaly and Orthodox unity in America.  Again the documents of autocephaly and the recent 2010 Statement on Autocephaly by the Synod of Bishops seems clear that autocephaly is meant to be an inclusive process – it is intended to bring about the unity of all Orthodox in American and is intended to include all the Orthodox in America of which the OCA is but a part.   The Metropolitan’s own thinking on this issue seems confused and at odds with the statement of Synod, which he signed.

[MJ}:  Whatever the particularities, we remain steadfast in our vision that the only acceptable solution for North America is a fully inclusive, united autocephalous Church with a single synod of bishops, electing our own bishops and primate, and controlling our own life. We will remain committed to a vision of conciliarity, of catholicity on all levels, affirming that all Orthodox Christians should have a voice in the life of the Church. We are absolutely committed to the vision that our task is missionary, to bring the gospel to Americans, and to incorporate Americans into the communion of the Orthodox Church.

I would agree that these are some of our basic principles and so we need to discuss how to embrace them and to bring them to the EA table.

But I don’t imagine that any of these ideals will be upheld by surrendering the autocephaly.   These are the very ideas we need to bring to the EA.  This is our task to the EA.

My concern would be that these words are not consistent with other things he has said and done regarding conciliarity, catholicity, unity and autocephaly.

[MJ}:  In relation to the task of entering into a deeper unity, there are several points in which we need to repent and be transformed. First, we need to drop the triumphalism and the arrogance that isolate us from our brother Orthodox in this continent. That does not mean that we’re not thankful for the gift of autocephaly given to us. Rather we must see it and ourselves in the larger context of the whole Orthodox community, not only in relation to ourselves.

This all becomes a tricky road to negotiate.   If the OCA exhibited triumphalism and arrogance (one needs only think of the Metropolitan’s own “pan Orthodox” speech), then maybe we need to back off all kinds of rhetoric suggesting we have the key or the solution to the problems of Orthodoxy in America.   If the leadership now imagines that the key is not promoting autocephaly but surrendering it, the leadership still arrogantly imagines it is the key to the solution.  Now suddenly the OCA can fix all the problems of Orthodoxy in America by simply dismantling its central structure, abandoning the mission entrusted to it by the autocephaly and submitting itself and all the small Orthodox jurisdictions to, what will be for them as for us, a foreign power.  As if that magically fixes all of the Orthodox problems in America.   It won’t.  The various overseas Patriarchates still have not agreed among themselves as to what is the solution nor to what they are willing to SUBMIT themselves.

Autocephaly is not the great stumbling block to Orthodox problems in America, over which all jurisdictions have tripped.   The real issue remains: what is the Orthodox mission in America?  We were told to be here as part of the Great Commission of Christ to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations.  When we are willing to discuss, “how do we do that in America?”, then we will deal with Orthodox unity.  But if we think we were sent to America to establish unity, then we will never get to our God-given mission and ministry.  When we agree why we are here, then we will cooperate.

Memory Eternal Fr. George Nedelkoff

The Very Reverend Fr. George Nedelkoff fell asleep in the Lord, Thursday evening, December 30.  May his memory be eternal. 

The schedule for the funeral services is as follows:

Thursday, January 6th:  Viewing at Adams Funeral Home, 1401 Fair Road, Sidney OH (937) 492-4700 from 5:00PM – 7:00PM followed by a Memorial Service at 7:00PM.  A map with directions to the Funeral Home are on the “Contacts” page of the website, linked above.

Friday, January 7th:  Viewing at St Nicholas Orthodox Church, 3535 Crescent Ave, Ft Wayne, IN (260) 484-2277 from 5:00PM – 7:00PM followed by a Memorial Service at 7:00PM.  Directions to St Nicholas as well as a link to Mapquest is on the “About Us” page of the website, linked above.

Saturday, January 8th:  9:30AM  Divine Liturgy at St Nicholas Orthodox Church.  For directions and a map to St Nicholas, please see the link for “Saturday, January 7th”.  Divine Liturgy will be followed by burial in Ft. Wayne and a Repast/Dinner.

The Gospel You Heard Me Preach

“The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is a ‘god-spell’ or ‘good news’ because it brings to the world something which is not merely new teaching, but a new life in contrast to the old.  The old life is ruled by sin, passions, corruption and death, and is presided over by the devil.  In spite of all its ‘natural’ pleasures it still leaves a bitter taste, because it is not true life, the life for which man was made, but a corrupted life, diseased, characterized by a sense of the irrational, of emptiness, and of anxiety.  The new life is offered to the world by the God-man Christ as a gift and possibility for all men.  The believer is united with Jesus Christ, and thus partakes of His divine and immortal life, that is, of everlasting and true life.”    (Archimandrite George Capsanis—Abbot of the Monastery of Osiou Gregoriou on Mount Athos, The Eros of Repentance:  Four Talks on Athonite Monasticism, pg 43-44)

 

Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (3)

This is the 3rd blog in this series in which I am reflecting on  the Keynote Address of Metropolitan Jonah to the 2010 Canadian Archdiocesan Assembly regarding the Episcopal Assembly.  The first blog is Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (1) and the previous blog:  Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (2).  I’m not going to repeat the Metropolitan’s entire address, but I will quote the specific portions of his speech which on which I’m offering my own reflections.  You can read the entire speech at the above mentioned link. 

[MJ}:  Our church, in a sense, if you want to put it into the context of those protocols, is in process. It was proposed. Some of the churches have accepted it, some of the churches are thinking about it, some of the churches have not accepted it. So it’s a process. We’re in process.

The OCA was given a status – autocephaly – in a manner that was consistent with how it was granted by Orthodox Mother Churches at that time (1970).  So if 40 years later in 2010 a new process for granting and accepting autocephaly is adopted is called into existence by Orthodox churches,  does this mean these new rules are grandfathered to cover past decisions of Orthodox Patriarchs?  Just how far back are we to go with this?  Can now all past decisions granting autocephaly be revisited?  So each time one Orthodox autocephalous church doesn’t like what another is doing can it withdraw its recognition of its self-rule and ask that the whole issue of autocephaly be revisited?   Maybe Constantinople would like to revisit the autocephalous status of all the various national churches of Europe?  Is this OK with all of these autocephalous churches?   I don’t imagine it would be.  The OCA’s autocephaly was granted in a legitimate manner consistent with how it had been done in the years following the collapse of the Turkish empire.

[MJ}:  The implication of autocephaly is that the universally recognized autocephalous church in a particular region becomes the criterion of canonicity and any other bodies within that region must submit to it. This has obviously not happened, and the other churches have reacted variously to our autocephaly.

The Apostles: Who is the Greatest?

Maybe the imagery is simply wrong.  Maybe what happens (or should happen) in a region such as the United States where there are many Orthodox jurisdictions is that because of brotherly love, Orthodox local churches/parishes/diocese band together recognizing the need to cooperate, recognizing the ethics of brotherly peace in accepting authority.  The image of submitting to a power is exactly the non Christ-like problem which bedevils the Church at times.  Once you start talking about groups of Christians living in submission to power, you have lost love, fraternity and Christianity.   Matthew 23:1-12 or any of Jesus’ discussions about which disciple is greatest, tell us that brotherly love is the only way for Christians or Orthodox jurisdictions to approach one another.  If we can’t do that, then no external authority is going to make that happen either.  The OCA and each archdiocese must approach each other in brotherly concern, not expecting or fearing submission, but looking for mutual love and concern.   The issue is not who submits to whom, but how do we cooperate in brotherly love.  Autocephaly is part of the Orthodox equation in America, surely the Orthodox can figure out in fraternal love how to deal with that reality even if it takes another 40 years.

Personally I do not see the Mother Churches working any faster on Orthodox unity in America if autocephaly is off the table.

In America there is no secular power forcing us or even encouraging us to work through our issues of disunity and multi-jurisdictionalism.  This is an internal Church issue which we should resolve as Christians, not using the civil images of power, authority and submission to the powerful, but rather relying on Christian notions of fraternity, and mutual submission to one another in love.

[MJ}:  The autocephaly was right for its time, but the times have changed, and there are new demands on us.

And was the Patriarchate of Constantinople wrong for its time when the Turks conquered Byzantium?   Was the Patriarchate of Moscow wrong for its times when Peter the Great demolished it or when the communists overthrew the Russian Orthodox empire?  Times are always changing, which is why autocephaly is so important for Orthodoxy in America.   We need the autocephaly so that our hands are not tied by past problems.

Autocephaly was right when it was proposed and it is right today because it continues to challenge us as Orthodox to live up to our Orthodox ideals as Church.

Autocephaly challenges us to think as Christians about what our mission in America really is.

I think it is fair to contend that in fact even the EA process is a response to the challenge of autocephaly.  So if the EA is the new process, it means that autocephaly is as relevant as ever to the discussion.  By bringing autocephaly to the table, the OCA enriches the EA process and discussion, for autocephaly is a reality for many Orthodox in America and a potential reality for the rest.

The 2010 Statement of the Synod of Bishops on Autocephaly affirms that the bishops of OCA remain committed to an autocephalous church for America.  Presumably since Metropolitan Jonah signed that statement, he is committed to it.  Autocephaly is being affirmed as right for America at this time.  It hopefully will not be limited to the current OCA, but rather will encompass all Orthodox in America, but it is still a goal for Orthodoxy in America to which our Synod has expressed its commitment.  Any talk by the Metropolitan of autocephaly being somehow an outdated idea is inconsistent with the vision of the Synod to which he belongs.  If anything the OCA is not trying to limit autocephaly to itself but rather is saying it was given to us for all Orthodox in America.   Autocephaly as conceived by the OCA’s Synod of Bishops is inclusive not exclusive.

Next:  Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (4)

Jon Stewart, Freedom & Tradition?

Comedian Jon Stewart of the Daly Show was interviewed this year by NPR’s Terry Gross, host of Fresh Air.  During the interview he made a very interesting comment about freedom with which many spiritual directors in the Orthodox tradition would agree.  Stewart said:

It – you know, we come in, and it’s not – people always think “The Daily Show,” you guys probably just sit around and make jokes. We have a very, kind of strict day that we have to adhere to. And by doing that, that allows us to process everything, and gives us the freedom to sort of improvise.

I’m a real believer in that creativity comes from limits not freedom. Freedom, I think you don’t know what to do with yourself. But when you have a structure, then you can improvise off it and feel confident enough to kind of come back to that.

Sometimes people feel a Tradition like in the Orthodox Church curtails creativity and personal expression.  Yet those in the tradition have taught for centuries that what humans often think of as freedom – freedom from constraint and structure to do as you wish – ends up enslaving a person to isolated individualism, namely to themselves.  Unable to free themselves from the limits of the self they are never able to aspire to anything greater than themself. 

One need only think about great athletes – their greatness is expressed when they perfectly follow all of the rules of the sport and yet excel.  It is within the context and structure of the sport’s rules that they can demonstrate their personal excellence.   If there are no rules, then greatness becomes meaningless.  We need only think about all of the baseball players now accused of abusing steroids.  Their “records” now all come into question as it cannot be said that they excelled in the sport, but rather by disregarding the rules their achievements are dubious at best.

The human being soars in spirit when he or she follows a discipline and keeps to the structure offered by Tradition and comes to realize what it is to be fully human, freed of the limitations of sin and selfishness.   Discipline is the means to true human freedom.

The Slaughter of the Holy Innocents

In chapter 2 [of St Matthew’s Gospel] Herod’s order to do away with the male infants of Bethlehem (2:16-18) is like Pharaoh’s order to do away with every male Hebrew child (Exodus 1).  And if Herod orders the slaughter of Hebrew infants because he has learned of the birth of Israel’s liberator (2:2-18), in Jewish tradition Pharaoh slaughters the Hebrew children because he has learned the very same thing (Josephus, Antiquities 2.205-9; Targum Ps-Jonathan on Ex 1:15).  Further, whereas Herod hears of the coming liberator from chief priests, scribes, and magi (2:1-12), Josephus (Antiquities 2.205 and 234) has Pharaoh learn of Israel’s deliverer  from scribes, while Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 1:15 says that Pharaoh’s chief magicians (Jannes and Jambres, the sons of Balaam) were the sources of his information.  The quotation of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15 further evokes thought of the exodus, for in its original context ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son’ concerns Israel.  And then there is 2:19-22, which borrows the language of Exodus 4:19-20:  just as Moses, after being told to go back to Egypt because all those seeking his life have died, takes his wife and children and returns to the land of his birth, so too with Jesus:  Joseph after being told to go back to Israel because all those seeking the life of his son have died, takes his wife and child and returns to the land of his son’s birth.”

(Allison, Dale C, Sermon on the Mount:  Inspiring the Moral Imagination, pgs 17-18)

Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (2)

This is the 2nd blog in this series in which I am reflecting on  the Keynote Address of Metropolitan Jonah to the 2010 Canadian Archdiocesan Assembly regarding the Episcopal Assembly.  The first blog is Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (1).  I’m not going to repeat the Metropolitan’s entire address, but I will quote the specific portions of his speech which on which I’m offering my own reflections.  You can read the entire speech at the above mentioned link. 

In the previous blog I puzzled over what conciliarity means in the church today.  The Metropolitan has pointed it out as a special trait of the OCA’s tradition, and yet his recent announcement of his intent to move the OCA headquarters to Washington, DC, seems to have been a unilarteral decision on his part, with no consultation with the Metropolitan Council, the Chancery Staff, the Diocese of Washington, or perhaps even with his fellow bishops on the Synod.  If conciliarity implies some type of open discussion, discernment and then decision, it is hard to see this happening in these recent events.

I’ll turn to some other comments Metropolitan Jonah made in his Canadian speech.

[MJ}:  However, the autocephaly itself causes many problems as it saw in the reactions of the other churches.

These words make me ask:   Was the church in America without problems before the OCA was created?  The autocephaly was NEEDED at the time it was given.  It has in fact stood as a challenge to all Orthodox jurisdictions in America to think about Orthodoxy, unity, and the Church as Church and not simply as an extension of foreign ethnic interests in America.  The OCA has led all Orthodox to have to think about what being ORTHODOX in America means.  These are good problems and good questions which we need to answer.  

Even if there were no autocephalous Church in America, would the other dioceses be any closer to unity or even discussing unity?   I venture the opinion that it is the existence of the OCA which has kept unity a topic of discussion among the Orthodox jurisdictions in Amnerica.  No jurisdiction has made Orthodox unity a priority as the OCA has.

Autocephaly may have caused problems, but not all of them were bad, and some of them were needed for Orthodoxy in America to embrace its own mission to this continent and in the present time.

As the Synod of Bishops in its recent,    Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, Monastics and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America on Autocephaly (Nativity Fast, 2010):

“As envisioned in the Tomos, we believe that the autocephaly given to us will be fully realized when the promise of Orthodox unity in North America is fulfilled, and the OCA together with all the Orthodox faithful in North America become one united Autocephalous Church of America, recognized by all other Orthodox Churches.”

Autocephaly has not just caused problems, it has also opened hearts and minds to the real mission of Orthodoxy in America.

[MJ}:  Autocephaly is a status within this system that prescribes a set of relationships with the other churches that, of necessity, must be entirely mutual. By unilaterally granting autocephaly to the OCA in 1970, those relationships were only partially established.

In the recent histories of granting autocephalous status to the various churches of Europe, each autocephaly caused and problem and was not immediately accepted by all the other Orthodox churches (just read Bogolepov’s TOWARD AN AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH).  The OCA’s experience is not even unique in this.  And certainly, once we get beyond the “foreign” interests of the Mother Churches, we have to begin to ask ourselves about having an indigenous church.  There are a sizable number of converts who are interested in learning how to be Orthodox in America, not how to become ethnically reoriented.   They are most interested in knowing how to be Christian in an Orthodox manner; it is our task to discern how to live this out in America as Americans.

[MJ}:  By some in the Greek world, they were categorically rejected and some of the churches are ambivalent. This played itself out in the exclusion of the OCA from the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Assembly in its non-recognition by Constantinople of having the right to vote as an Autocephalous Church.

The exclusion of the OCA from the Executive Committee of the EA is not the OCA’s biggest problem.  The EA is an attempt to deal with the non-canonical situation in America, it is an attempt by the Mother Churches to deal with each other and with their dioceses in America.   The OCA is not in the same category as these other churches.  We are an autocephalous church, not some diocesan extension of a  Mother Church.   So we are not hurt at the moment by being excluded from the EA’s Executive Committee.   They have to work out their problems with each other and then they can look at us.  We ought to sit there as a reminder that we exist, but we don’t face the same problems as all of the other jurisdictions who are tied to Mother Churches.    We should actively cooperate with the EA process, even if only to the level that they will allow us.  We still exist, we are not going away and they will still have to figure out their relationship to us, once they figure out their relationships to each other.

Next:  Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (3)

Christmas: The Incarnation of God’s Word

In our Orthodox hymnology, Jesus is the one who “had made godlike the fallen nature of men”.  This is the significance of Christmas, the birth in the flesh of God’s Son.  Georges Florovsky explains:

“With the Incarnation of the Word the first fruit of human nature is unalterably grafted into the Divine Life, and hence to all creatures the way to communion with this Life is open, the way of adoption by God.  In the phrase of St Athanasius, the Word ‘became man in order to deify [ϑεοποιήοη] us in Himself,’ in order that “the sons of men might become the sons of God.”  Through the “flesh-bearing God” we have become ‘Spirit-bearing men’; and thus is recovered what had been lost since the original sin, when ‘the transgression of the commandment turned man into what he was by nature,’ over which he had been elevated in his very first adoption or birth from God, coinciding with his initial creation.”

(Florovsky, Georges Creation and Redemption, pg 75)

Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (1)

Ancient Faith Radio has made available for us all to contemplate, the Keynote Address of Metropolitan Jonah to the 2010 Canadian Archdiocesan Assembly regarding the Episcopal Assembly.  It is the beauty of the Internet that it can make available for all, speeches and documents which we then can engage in terms of our blogs and web pages as we continue to take an interest in the well being of the churches of God and the unity of all.  Public discourse on issues of significance in the Church is a healthy thing for the Church, and thankfully their is now a forum – the internet – through which even more members can participate in the decision making process.

Reflecting on the words of Metropolitan Jonah (MJ in the text below), brought to mind some thoughts, questions and comments, which I’ll offer up in this blog series.  I’m not going to repeat the Metropolitan’s entire address, but I will quote the specific portions of his speech which on which I’m offering my own reflections.  You can read the entire speech at the above mentioned link. 

[MJ}:  “….the tradition and the particular contributions that the OCA has for the whole American, North American, experience. Particularly, this has to do with a vision of conciliarity on a broad level that is an essential element of our experience of the Church. Conciliarity refers to the Church meeting in Council, initially with the Synods of Bishops. It has come to mean a broader participation by clergy and laity in the decision-making processes of the Church and their inclusion in various levels of councils.”

I  agree with the Metropolitan that  the OCA has consciously in its STATUTES and in its practice worked to be a conciliar church, and this has become part of the very way we in the OCA see ourselves.  We have and continue to wrestle with what conciliarity means in the Church.   What is less clear to me is what this conciliar element means to him in practice.      

I am not clear what he imagines by “broader participation by the clergy and laity in the decision-making processes of the church.”    What exactly does that look like to him?  I would like to see him spell out the details of  how this practically works.    How is he actively promoting this?  What specific actions is he taking to make it happen? 

I ask those questions because I’ve heard him say publicly (but also been attributed to him privately)  pointed criticisms of the Metropolitan Council and the All American Council, including ideas to do away with both as they are currently constituted.    If he were to enact his vision, there certainly would be less participation by the church as a whole in the leadership of the church – parishes and parish members would have far less role in decision making processes on the level of the OCA.  Though he seems to advocate an ideal of working at the level of the local church – whether diocese or parish – I’ve not heard him spell out in any great detail what all he sees the laity doing in the church.     He has also criticized the chancery staff and expressed ideas of favoring a monastic control of the administration of the church which would in fact further exclude married clergy and laity  (and thus the majority of church members) from decision making processes.    If these changes were enacted, the laity and the parish clergy would have far less role in participating in the administration of the church, and their input would be further distanced from the decision makers.

So though I hear our Metropolitan speak in some glowing idealistic terms about conciliarity, on the other hand, I’ve not really seen in his words any practical detail of what his vision would look like for the OCA in the end.   I would like to see him give a better explanation of how he envisions the Church functioning administratively and  to provide some clear ideas as to how the lay membership of the church and the parish clergy are to actively function in the decision-making processes of the church.  In actual practice what does conciliarity look like?

Does “conciliarity” mean that the bishop’s vision is to be realized by the membership who are to be passive when it comes to ideas but active only in actualizing what the bishop wants, or does it mean an actual discourse, dialogue and even debate about vision, goals, policy and procedure?   What happens when the membership of the church has a direction or vision for the Church which is in conflict with the bishop’s (I’m not speaking about a conflict in doctrine, but more of what we commonly think of as ‘vision’)?   What happens when the membership does not share the bishop’s vision or lacks confidence in the bishop’s plans?  What happens if the membership is more inspired or energized than the bishop?   What does conciliarity look like in these circumstances?

These are aspects of conciliarity that have not yet been fully articulated.  Even what does conciliarity imply about the Synod of Bishops’ own decision making?  How do they as synod (a body within the Church) model conciliarity in their own deliberations for the rest of the church?

Next:  Reflections on the OCA, Autocephaly & the Future (2)