Orthodox Hierarchy

[MrJim]

I'm just full of questions today:wave:

I don't fully understand what happened at Vatican 2. (I'll get someone over at OBOB to explain though feel free to explain if you like.) In my ongoing study of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism it seems that something very significant happened then that has caused some problems amongst the RC church.

I'm wondering if it is possible that something of this magnitude has happened or could happen within the Orthodox church.

Thanks TAW

[tdcharles]

A few points regarding Vatican II.

1) By Paul VI's own admission, Vatican II was a pastoral council, unlike all of the previous ones.
2) The documents of VII are often ambiguous and open to interpretation.
3) No anathemas were ever issued.
4) Some interpretations can lead to teachings that contradict historic Church teaching.

Taking into accoutn the four points above, it is impossible to hold VII on the same level as the previous councils. VII must be interpreted in light of previous teaching, since the truth can't contradict itself.

[MrJim]

Do you feel it did more harm than good?

Also, could something like this happen with Orthodox?

[drewmeister2]

I feel the Council itself wasn't bad, but rather, the way it was applied was bad. So no, the Council itself didn't do more harm than good, but the way it was applied did more harm than good (in my opinion anyway).

[tdcharles]

I agree with drewmeister. Vatican II had potential, but it was ruined by forgetting tradition. People often, and incorrectly, speak of a pre-Vatican II an post-Vatican II Church. In reality it's the same Church, people are just inappropriately placing too much focus on Vatican II and not enough focus on previous teaching.

[MrJim]

So it's possible for the Orthodox to have a council like Vatican 2? When was the last significant (I guess all would be) council for Orthodox leaders (bishops?)?

[Marjorie]

Everyone who has answered here so far has been Catholic; since we are Orthodox we can't really say much about Vatican II. What do you mean by 'a council like Vatican II'? I know what VII was, and its history, but what do you mean specifically?

We have councils all the time; it's ecumenical councils that are rarer. Some count a few post-schism councils as ecumenical though.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Rilian]

I don't worry much that we will have a council that will come along and turn things upside down. More likely to me is that all of us will individually surrender to the world and give in to nominalism, secularism, materialism and so on.

The other risk I think is that we will make an idol of the church and view it not as the outpost of the kingdom of God; but as a political institution, a bastion of national identity, or simply a club to socialize in.

In all of these cases we have lost sight of Christ, and therein to me is the common thread of what will bring us down.

[Photini]

I do not believe that this is something that could occur within Orthodoxy. Councils must agree with the conscience of the Church.

[Photini]

I don't worry much that we will have a council that will come along and turn things upside down. More likely to me is that all of us will individually surrender to the world and give in to nominalism, secularism, materialism and so on.

The other risk I think is that we will make an idol of the church and view it not as the outpost of the kingdom of God; but as a political institution, a bastion of national identity, or simply a club to socialize in.

In all of these cases we have lost sight of Christ, and therein to me is the common thread of what will bring us down.
I agree.

[MrJim]

Everyone who has answered here so far has been Catholic; since we are Orthodox we can't really say much about Vatican II. What do you mean by 'a council like Vatican II'? I know what VII was, and its history, but what do you mean specifically?

We have councils all the time; it's ecumenical councils that are rarer. Some count a few post-schism councils as ecumenical though.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Curious to the nature and authority of Orthodox leadership. Apparently V2 made a significant impact upon the RC and just wonder if the nature of your leadership has the same potential via councils.

[choirfiend]

Curious to the nature and authority of Orthodox leadership. Apparently V2 made a significant impact upon the RC and just wonder if the nature of your leadership has the same potential via councils.

No, don't really think so. Councils are not the only way the Spirit leads, the leadership as WELL as the laity must accept what comes from a council. There was a council where the bishops came back with something heretical and all the people absolutely rejected it and the bishops went back into council. Plus, the very fact that we have local councils and locally controlled churches (except when we have ecumenical councils, which, of course, we havent had a reason to have in a loooooong time) keeps vast changes from happening everywhere.

[Photini]

No. There is not the potential of this. In Orthodoxy, the Councils are the mouth of the Church, and that Church includes ALL the faithful. That is, the conscience of the Church.

Whereas in contrast to the RCC:


And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

[MrJim]

No. There is not the potential of this. In Orthodoxy, the Councils are the mouth of the Church, and that Church includes ALL the faithful. That is, the conscience of the Church.

Whereas in contrast to the RCC:


http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Interesting...it sounds almost congregational;) .

How is the church authority set up? I would assume a priest (local), bishop (regional), sort of structure?

[MariaRegina]

Interesting...it sounds almost congregational;) .

How is the church authority set up? I would assume a priest (local), bishop (regional), sort of structure?

The Orthodox prefer to use the word "Conciliar" when they refer to the Hierarchial structure of the Church.

[MrJim]

The Orthodox prefer to use the word "Conciliar" when they refer to the Hierarchial structure of the Church.

Elaborate please...

[MariaRegina]

Elaborate please...

The bishops meet in synods (or Councils) to decide things.

If you will read Acts again, you will notice the First Council of Jerusalem where it was decided in council to ask the neophytes to abstain from sexual immorality - and most importantly that the males did not need to be circumcized.

[MrJim]

So give me a sketch of how it's structured.

Also, do congregations have priests assigned to them or do they hunt one up (so to speak)...

[MariaRegina]

Also, do congregations have priests assigned to them or do they hunt one up (so to speak)...

Both ways ... determining on the jurisdiction.

Some OCA parishes select a committee and do an active search for a priest but they do consult with the Bishop.

Other priests are assigned by the Bshop, but the parish does have some say, depending on the jurisdiction.

[Xpycoctomos]

Okay menno, here's the basic idea:

On the top we have Patriarchs and Metropolitans. They are the bishops who have the last say on matters of administration. Actually, most of the Patriarchs and metropolitans do not/cannot make these decisions on their own, rahter they are usually part of a synod (a group of bishops) that make up the patriarchate. The patriarch himself is more of a first among equals. I represents the group. Under him are archbishops and a lot of other names I don't know. Basically, it makes kind of a pyramid of ADMINISTRATIVE power. what I mean by this is that this power is only about appointing other bishops, moving priests around, allowing new parishes to be built etc. The guy at the bottom of the totum pole is merely a bishop. All of this heirarchy is just to make the administration of the Church run more smoothly. In the early Church, they just had plain old bishops, patriarchs are only a TYPE of bishop that later developed as the plain old bishops needed help running the Church.

Now, something that should be made clear is, at least theoretically, no bishop has any more power than another bishop in defining doctrine and dogma. It would be just as scandalous if the Russian Patriarch Alexei II defined new dogma as if the bishop of tweeterville, AL did the same. Bishops must come together in council to decide on these issues and THEN the Church, over time, will test the truth of these dogmas.

Also, realize that in the States we have a complete mess because you are only supposed to have one bishop (including the heirarchy that's over him) overseeing a region. These regions should not overlap. But they do. In my city alone we have an antiochian Church, Russian Church and Greek Church. Three bishops overlooking the same area. It's an unavoidable mess for now.

DId that confuse you enough? lol

John

[MrJim]

Okay menno, here's the basic idea:

On the top we have Patriarchs and Metropolitans. They are the bishops who have the last say on matters of administration. Actually, most of the Patriarchs and metropolitans do not/cannot make these decisions on their own, rahter they are usually part of a synod (a group of bishops) that make up the patriarchate. The patriarch himself is more of a first among equals. I represents the group. Under him are archbishops and a lot of other names I don't know. Basically, it makes kind of a pyramid of ADMINISTRATIVE power. what I mean by this is that this power is only about appointing other bishops, moving priests around, allowing new parishes to be built etc. The guy at the bottom of the totum pole is merely a bishop. All of this heirarchy is just to make the administration of the Church run more smoothly. In the early Church, they just had plain old bishops, patriarchs are only a TYPE of bishop that later developed as the plain old bishops needed help running the Church.

Now, something that should be made clear is, at least theoretically, no bishop has any more power than another bishop in defining doctrine and dogma. It would be just as scandalous if the Russian Patriarch Alexei II defined new dogma as if the bishop of tweeterville, AL did the same. Bishops must come together in council to decide on these issues and THEN the Church, over time, will test the truth of these dogmas.

Also, realize that in the States we have a complete mess because you are only supposed to have one bishop (including the heirarchy that's over him) overseeing a region. These regions should not overlap. But they do. In my city alone we have an antiochian Church, Russian Church and Greek Church. Three bishops overlooking the same area. It's an unavoidable mess for now.

DId that confuse you enough? lol

John

What is a Metropolitan?

Seems clear enough. So do the different "branches" of Orthodoxy recognize each other and gather at these councils or is that what was referred to as an ecumenical council?

So Priests in a particular region are accountable to a bishop and the bishops are under a archbishop of a larger region. Then these archbishops would be the gathered synod (or are the other bishops included?) with the Patriarch as sort of the facillitator.

So the Patriarch would be the "head" at least in laymen's terms. I'm sorry I've never heard of him so maybe he keeps a low profile? Since you said he is "first among equals" I would take it that he doesn't have a sort of special "pope" stature as with RC.

And I understand the EO to be an apostolic church. So does the Peterine succession work in a similar way here as with RC?

Thanks for answering my questions TAW!

[Xpycoctomos]

Not that everything you said here was exactly right, but your general grasp is VERY good... and comparable to mine lol.

What is a Metropolitan?

Basically the same as a patriarch. First remember that the Patriarchs are bishops and among the bishops they are the "head honchos" so to speak (administratively speaking). Metropolitans are too but here's the difference (I might be wrong here but someone will correct me if I am). My understanding is that both Patriarchs and Metropolitans are the heads or representatives of their own Jurisdiction (like, Patriarch Alexei II is head of the Russian Orthdox Church, Patriarch Bartholemew is the head (Patriarch) of Constantinople -note: he is also known as the Ecumenical Patriarch, traditionally he has been the main spokesman for the Orthodox Church... nowadays however his influence is questionable being that his jurisdiction is sadly dwindling in numbers due to turkish opression-, Metroplitan Herman (correct?) is the head of the OCA -Orthodox Church in America- and so on). The difference is that a Patriarch is oversees a more historical See. Like there is a Patriarch of Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece (right?), Russia (this is not an ancietn See, but none the less it is 1000 years old!) etc. Metrolpolitans are heads in areas that are not as old. That's the basic gist of the matter anyway.

Seems clear enough. So do the different "branches" of Orthodoxy recognize each other and gather at these councils or is that what was referred to as an ecumenical council?

These "branches" you write of are what I meant when I said "Jurisdictions". Ideally, yes, they all recognize each other and that is how we recongize where the Church is and where the Church is not. There are, however, complications and confusions due to unfortunate steps that some felt they had to make to preserve Orthodoxy during the communist years. Some feel that these steps separated themselves from the Church... others are more undertanding and recognize them as a legitmate part of the Church. One of these groups in question is the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia). They split off from the Patriarchate of Moscow (Russia) during the communist years for the y felt the Patriarch was nothing more than a puppet for the communist regime. Now they are thankfully in very productive talks to reunify. Either way, most all jurisdictions sympathize with why the ROCOR was created and except them as fully Orthodox even if they do not yet officially have communion. Poliotics has taken its hard toll on the Church... but there have always been situations like these in the whole history of the Church, so this is nothing new. Not everything is always clean cut unfortunately.

So Priests in a particular region are accountable to a bishop and the bishops are under a archbishop of a larger region. Then these archbishops would be the gathered synod (or are the other bishops included?) with the Patriarch as sort of the facillitator.

Yes! Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the last line of saying the Patriarch is a sort of facilitator. Remember that he, like the others, is just as much a bishop. He just has a fancy title. Yes, he is a sort of facilitator in that he is the one who would have the right to call an Ecumenical council. Then all the bishops would come (although... many of them may just send delegates to represent them) and talk about whatever issue is of concern at the time. Actually, the one who would call a council would be the Patriarch of Constantinople (Patriarch Bartholemew, the Ecumenical Patriarch) becauase he is still recognised as "first among equals". however he absoultely NO sy over ANYTHNG that happens in other jursidictions.. he just gets a special respect in the Church and is to act as a sort of representative. Many nowdays would question whether or not he has represented the Church well... but that's another thread! lol

So the Patriarch would be the "head" at least in laymen's terms. I'm sorry I've never heard of him so maybe he keeps a low profile? Since you said he is "first among equals" I would take it that he doesn't have a sort of special "pope" stature as with RC.

Very keen observation. Just as I said about the Ecumenical Patriarch having no real special powers (except x-ray vision and turning into fire... or was that the fantastic four???) so, the Patriarch is properly termed a "head" just in that he represents his patriarchate (and, he does have special administrative powers along with his special synod). He is a first among equals within his jurisdiction but again... he can't come out tomorrow and declare that the moon is made out of cheese. He is, in the end, only one bishop.. and a fallible one at that. The Council would have to come together (made up of bishops from all over the Church) and declare that the moon is made out of cheese... but, that council would probalby be declared in error (I would guess lol) and would therefore not be remembered as an Ecumenical council as, after being tested by the Holy Spirit through the Church (or in this case, NASA), it was shown to be in error.

And I understand the EO to be an apostolic church. So does the Peterine succession work in a similar way here as with RC?

The word you're looking for is Petrine (in case that was more than just a simply slip of the finger). I can't comment on this except to tell you that the eclesiology of the OC and the RC are two VERY different animals. As you yourself said earlier, Our Patriarchs are not viewed like the RC Pope is at all. Historically we would say that the Pope in Rome was viewed as a very special Patriarch (when he was Orthodox, before the schism in 1054) and his words were given very special consideration by the Church. But he was never viewed as infallible and did not have the last say in anything.

Thanks for answering my questions TAW!

Well, i hope i didn't confuse you more than help you.

Thanks for the questions!

God bless!

John

[Maximus]

I'm just full of questions today:wave:

I don't fully understand what happened at Vatican 2. (I'll get someone over at OBOB to explain though feel free to explain if you like.) In my ongoing study of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism it seems that something very significant happened then that has caused some problems amongst the RC church.

I'm wondering if it is possible that something of this magnitude has happened or could happen within the Orthodox church.

Thanks TAW

Sure. We could have our own version of Vatican II.

Anything is possible. If we did, such a council would be rejected by the faithful.

Councils are a dime-a-dozen. Anyone can have them.

The Arians held a bunch of them. They even anathematized the original Nicene Creed. Remember, too, the Arians who did these things were real, live, authentically and legitimately appointed bishops, with Apostolic Succession and the whole nine yards. In the mid-4th century, the majority of bishops - especially in the East - were Arians. They had their own pope, too: Felix. He is now known as an "anti-pope," but did the people alive then know that?

The Monophysites who got together and held the "Robber Synod" (Latrocinium) at Ephesus in 449 (and killed St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople) were hierarchs of the Church at that time. The head robber, Dioscorus, was Patriarch of Alexandria, at that time the valid successor to St. Mark. The Non-Chalcedonians still regard the Latrocinium as an ecumenical council and refer to it as "Ephesus II."

There is no neat and tidy way to say how it is decided that a particular council is a true, holy ecumenical council. The Holy Spirit reveals it to the people of God over time, sometimes over a great deal of time.

A true council cannot contradict Scripture, the consensus of the Fathers, the holy councils that preceded it, or any part of the Deposit of Faith.

If the current set of Orthodox hierarchs got together and had an EO version of Vatican II, it would most certainly be rejected by the people of God, but probably not without years of strife and turmoil.

Lord, save us from such a thing! :crosseo:

[Xpycoctomos]

Excellent post. You've posted it almost verbatim before I believe... but it's so concise, simnple and Orthodox.

John

[Maximus]

Excellent post. You've posted it almost verbatim before I believe... but it's so concise, simnple and Orthodox.

John

Thanks. It's not a cut-and-paste job, though.

I think I have the basics committed to memory because I have responded to similar questions so many times before.

The history of the whole Arian controversy is particularly instructive regarding the role of the laity in defending and preserving the faith.

[ExOrienteLux]

A few words of clarification: a Metropolitan is not necessarily head of a national Church. A Metropolitan is simply a title for a bishop who has his see in a large city (metropolis in Greek). For example, yes, H.B. HERMAN is a Metropolitan, but so is H.E. PHILIP and H.E. MAXIMOS, though they aren't heads of their Churches. However, all three of them are in cities with sizable populations both of Orthodox and non-Orthodox (Washington, New York, and Pittsburgh, respectively).

Just a point of clarification.

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.

[Xpycoctomos]

A few words of clarification: a Metropolitan is not necessarily head of a national Church. A Metropolitan is simply a title for a bishop who has his see in a large city (metropolis in Greek). For example, yes, H.B. HERMAN is a Metropolitan, but so is H.E. PHILIP and H.E. MAXIMOS, though they aren't heads of their Churches. However, all three of them are in cities with sizable populations both of Orthodox and non-Orthodox (Washington, New York, and Pittsburgh, respectively).

Just a point of clarification.

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.

Thanks for clearing that up. By the way, isn't HE Philip from the Antiochian Church. If so, that Church is now autonomous so he would now be the head of the Antiochian Church in American. If that is so, However, that was probably his title before the autonomy was granted and either way, your point still stands. Thanks for the correcting my mistake.

John

[gzt]

This is a difference between Greek and Slavic ways of denoting eminence. In Russia, Metropolitan is higher than Archbishop, in Greece it's the opposite.

[ExOrienteLux]

Case in point: HE DEMETRIOS is an Archbishop, while HE MAXIMOS is a Metropolitan. I was wondering why that was. Guess it's me stuck in wanna-be-Slav mode.

[MrJim]

Not that everything you said here was exactly right, but your general grasp is VERY good... and comparable to mine lol.



Basically the same as a patriarch. First remember that the Patriarchs are bishops and among the bishops they are the "head honchos" so to speak (administratively speaking). Metropolitans are too but here's the difference (I might be wrong here but someone will correct me if I am). My understanding is that both Patriarchs and Metropolitans are the heads or representatives of their own Jurisdiction (like, Patriarch Alexei II is head of the Russian Orthdox Church, Patriarch Bartholemew is the head (Patriarch) of Constantinople -note: he is also known as the Ecumenical Patriarch, traditionally he has been the main spokesman for the Orthodox Church... nowadays however his influence is questionable being that his jurisdiction is sadly dwindling in numbers due to turkish opression-, Metroplitan Herman (correct?) is the head of the OCA -Orthodox Church in America- and so on). The difference is that a Patriarch is oversees a more historical See. Like there is a Patriarch of Antioch, Jerusalem, Greece (right?), Russia (this is not an ancietn See, but none the less it is 1000 years old!) etc. Metrolpolitans are heads in areas that are not as old. That's the basic gist of the matter anyway.



These "branches" you write of are what I meant when I said "Jurisdictions". Ideally, yes, they all recognize each other and that is how we recongize where the Church is and where the Church is not. There are, however, complications and confusions due to unfortunate steps that some felt they had to make to preserve Orthodoxy during the communist years. Some feel that these steps separated themselves from the Church... others are more undertanding and recognize them as a legitmate part of the Church. One of these groups in question is the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia). They split off from the Patriarchate of Moscow (Russia) during the communist years for the y felt the Patriarch was nothing more than a puppet for the communist regime. Now they are thankfully in very productive talks to reunify. Either way, most all jurisdictions sympathize with why the ROCOR was created and except them as fully Orthodox even if they do not yet officially have communion. Poliotics has taken its hard toll on the Church... but there have always been situations like these in the whole history of the Church, so this is nothing new. Not everything is always clean cut unfortunately.



Yes! Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the last line of saying the Patriarch is a sort of facilitator. Remember that he, like the others, is just as much a bishop. He just has a fancy title. Yes, he is a sort of facilitator in that he is the one who would have the right to call an Ecumenical council. Then all the bishops would come (although... many of them may just send delegates to represent them) and talk about whatever issue is of concern at the time. Actually, the one who would call a council would be the Patriarch of Constantinople (Patriarch Bartholemew, the Ecumenical Patriarch) becauase he is still recognised as "first among equals". however he absoultely NO sy over ANYTHNG that happens in other jursidictions.. he just gets a special respect in the Church and is to act as a sort of representative. Many nowdays would question whether or not he has represented the Church well... but that's another thread! lol



Very keen observation. Just as I said about the Ecumenical Patriarch having no real special powers (except x-ray vision and turning into fire... or was that the fantastic four???) so, the Patriarch is properly termed a "head" just in that he represents his patriarchate (and, he does have special administrative powers along with his special synod). He is a first among equals within his jurisdiction but again... he can't come out tomorrow and declare that the moon is made out of cheese. He is, in the end, only one bishop.. and a fallible one at that. The Council would have to come together (made up of bishops from all over the Church) and declare that the moon is made out of cheese... but, that council would probalby be declared in error (I would guess lol) and would therefore not be remembered as an Ecumenical council as, after being tested by the Holy Spirit through the Church (or in this case, NASA), it was shown to be in error.



The word you're looking for is Petrine (in case that was more than just a simply slip of the finger). I can't comment on this except to tell you that the eclesiology of the OC and the RC are two VERY different animals. As you yourself said earlier, Our Patriarchs are not viewed like the RC Pope is at all. Historically we would say that the Pope in Rome was viewed as a very special Patriarch (when he was Orthodox, before the schism in 1054) and his words were given very special consideration by the Church. But he was never viewed as infallible and did not have the last say in anything.



Well, i hope i didn't confuse you more than help you.

Thanks for the questions!

God bless!

John

No it didn't confuse me more. I like the sound of this maybe a bit more than RC--seems a bit more "touchable" in a sense I guess.

[MrJim]

Sure. We could have our own version of Vatican II.

Anything is possible. If we did, such a council would be rejected by the faithful.



What I am hearing you say is that RC councils are different in that since the hierachy is given more "power" that all teachings flow from them (being the papacy and cardinals etc) via authority entrusted to them whereas EO doesn't exactly work that way. The EO authority isn't it's own separate entity-there is an accountability sort of thing.

I understand that RC would say the they teaching given via the Pope would be infallible. But I am hearing you say that, the hierarchy teaching will be held accountable by the body and teaching is not divinely inspired and infallible.

Thanks TAW

[Maximus]

What I am hearing you say is that RC councils are different in that since the hierachy is given more "power" that all teachings flow from them (being the papacy and cardinals etc) via authority entrusted to them whereas EO doesn't exactly work that way. The EO authority isn't it's own separate entity-there is an accountability sort of thing.

I understand that RC would say the they teaching given via the Pope would be infallible. But I am hearing you say that, the hierarchy teaching will be held accountable by the body and teaching is not divinely inspired and infallible.

Thanks TAW

That sounds about right.

This represents a major difference between the RCC and the Orthodox Church.

When the Romans say the Church is infallible, what they have in mind is the Magisterium, which is composed of all the bishops of the Church in communion with and under the authority of the Pope.

When we say the Church is infallible, we mean the Church, i.e., the whole people of God, the Body of Christ.

It is possible for hierarchs to err, even the majority of them all at once. That has happened in the past. It is not possible for the whole Church to be in error. There will always be a remnant of faithful who will preserve the true teaching. The Holy Spirit will gather to them all those who belong to Christ.

This is not a neat and tidy system like the idea of an infallible Magisterium, but it is the way things are and the way the Holy Spirit leads the Church.

[Servus Iesu]

The RC does not deny that the Pope and Bishops can and do err. There have been both Popes and Bishops that have been heretics.

I think this is more a problem with the personality cult formed around some hierarchs in modern times. It is falsely believed that everything a Pope says or writes or remarks is somehow infallible. This isn't true and it is a notion specifically rejected by Vatican I.

[Rilian]

There have been both Popes and Bishops that have been heretics.

and it is for this reason among others that Pastor aeternus is unacceptable to the East.

[Maximus]

The RC does not deny that the Pope and Bishops can and do err. There have been both Popes and Bishops that have been heretics.

I think this is more a problem with the personality cult formed around some hierarchs in modern times. It is falsely believed that everything a Pope says or writes or remarks is somehow infallible. This isn't true and it is a notion specifically rejected by Vatican I.

It does deny that the Pope and the bishops together - the Magisterium - can err in matters of faith and morals.

Most of us understand that a pope must intend to speak or teach ex cathedra on faith or morals for the doctrine of papal infallibility to kick in.

In my opinion it is a slippery doctrine - hard to get a handle on - full of loopholes and wiggle room and plausible deniability.

It is convenient for living popes because it enhances their power and authority. The vagaries of it give a living pope the room to manuever around the words of past popes via reinterpretation or the outright denial that a prior pope was invoking his charism of infallibility.

[MrJim]

That sounds about right.

This represents a major difference between the RCC and the Orthodox Church.

When the Romans say the Church is infallible, what they have in mind is the Magisterium, which is composed of all the bishops of the Church in communion with and under the authority of the Pope.

When we say the Church is infallible, we mean the Church, i.e., the whole people of God, the Body of Christ.

It is possible for hierarchs to err, even the majority of them all at once. That has happened in the past. It is not possible for the whole Church to be in error. There will always be a remnant of faithful who will preserve the true teaching. The Holy Spirit will gather to them all those who belong to Christ.

This is not a neat and tidy system like the idea of an infallible Magisterium, but it is the way things are and the way the Holy Spirit leads the Church.

Looks like a huge difference between the two.

Thanks for the clarification-it really helped. This does put some different perspective on things and from a "protestant" point of view it would be a major difference you would want to clarify with seekers (and probably have been doing).

Peace

[Marjorie]

Also one note on the standard for Orthodox teaching to add to Maximus's (as always) excellent explanation of doctrine in the Body of Christ... many people will talk about it as if it is some kind of democratic majority-rule system, but this is not true. The criterion is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." Not only "by all," which is the usual Protestant model (majority-rule), but also the historical voice of the Church, spoken wherever the Church was, in all its branches. This is why it is possible for the true Church to be a minority, as has been the case in different parts of Church history-- it is entirely possible for the majority of 'Orthodox' believers to have broken off from the gospel.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Philip]

The criterion is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." Not only "by all," which is the usual Protestant model (majority-rule), but also the historical voice of the Church, spoken wherever the Church was, in all its branches.

I would like to emphasize the word 'always'. Orthodoxy stresses ecumenism across both space and time. We do not divide the Body of Christ into those here today and those who have follow asleep. We are one Church. This is central to the Orthodox faith and is visible in both our belief in the Communion of Saints and our celebration of the Eucharist. If we truly believe in One Faith and One Church, how can we reject the Fathers? How can we deny their inspiration while asserting ours?

[Servus Iesu]

It does deny that the Pope and the bishops together - the Magisterium - can err in matters of faith and morals.

Most of us understand that a pope must intend to speak or teach ex cathedra on faith or morals for the doctrine of papal infallibility to kick in.

In my opinion it is a slippery doctrine - hard to get a handle on - full of loopholes and wiggle room and plausible deniability.

Doesn't it cut both ways? How can you guys really define what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all? It seems that this is also a doctrine hard to get a handle on. All, everywhere, and always certainly aren't absolutes.

We sometimes use the phrase 'constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium' which means that many doctrines are simply understood to be immutable because they have always been held.

It is convenient for living popes because it enhances their power and authority. The vagaries of it give a living pope the room to manuever around the words of past popes via reinterpretation or the outright denial that a prior pope was invoking his charism of infallibility.

Would you mind offering an example? Don't worry about offending me...

[Maximus]

Also one note on the standard for Orthodox teaching to add to Maximus's (as always) excellent explanation of doctrine in the Body of Christ... many people will talk about it as if it is some kind of democratic majority-rule system, but this is not true. The criterion is "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." Not only "by all," which is the usual Protestant model (majority-rule), but also the historical voice of the Church, spoken wherever the Church was, in all its branches. This is why it is possible for the true Church to be a minority, as has been the case in different parts of Church history-- it is entirely possible for the majority of 'Orthodox' believers to have broken off from the gospel.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Excellent point.

I think the Scriptures speak about such a time in the future: the "Great Apostasy" (2 Thessalonians 2).

Most of those who call themselves Christians will be so only in name.

In defense of the Protestants, I don't think they believe in a "majority rule" idea either.

[Maximus]

Would you mind offering an example? Don't worry about offending me...

Just contrast the words of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos with Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio, for example.