Need some clarification please...

[Reformationist]

One of your fellow EO stated "The Church as a whole is infalliable, not a man, or certain men. The appointed men decide on certain things but the WHOLE CHURCH must accept their decisions for them to be considered infalliable."

He also stated that, "No decision, when made, is said to be infalliable, but must stand through time and be accepted by the Church as a whole to be pronounced infallible."

Please, if you are inclined, explain whether these claims accurately represent your church's teachings on the issue of infallibility.

I would appreciate it if the person who made those statements refrain from answering as it is obvious that he already feels that those statements are in keeping with his church's views.

Thank you,
God bless

[Knowledge3]

The universal Orthodox Church as a whole is infallible by right of seven full Ecumenical Councils.

She is an organ and intimate of Vessel of unity in the body of Christ.

[MariaRegina]

Hi, long time no see! :)

The teaching about infallibility is best described in Bishop KALLISTOS Ware's book, The Orthodox Church (1993).

p. 251-4 infallibility of councils

p. 248-9 infallibility of the Church

p. 49 infallibility of the Pope



If you would go over to www.byzcath.org (http://www.byzorg.org) and ask that question of Father Anthony, an admin there, you would get a better answer.

[MariaRegina]

Also check www.oca.org.

[Knowledge3]

[triple-post]

[Knowledge3]

St. Peter established the ancient see of Antioch in 34-6 A.D. :priest:

[Knowledge3]

[edit] . . .

[Kristos]

Without writing a complete essay (which many have been on this subject), yes. In a nutshell, that sounds pretty close. A distiction to make here is that Orthodox do not have a Pope - a single person, who can create dogma. Nor do we believe in "personal" theology, that contradicts what has been believed by the Church from the beginning.

Joke: How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb? None - Orthodox don't know how to change anything.

[Reformationist]

Hi, long time no see! :)

The teaching about infallibility is best described in Bishop KALLISTOS Ware's book, The Orthodox Church (1993).

p. 251-4 infallibility of councils

p. 248-9 infallibility of the Church

p. 49 infallibility of the Pope



If you would go over to www.byzcath.org (http://www.byzorg.org) and ask that question of Father Anthony, an admin there, you would get a better answer.

Thanks. I think I'm gonna take my chances here on this forum for now but I'll keep it in mind.

God bless

[Reformationist]

Without writing a complete essay (which many have been on this subject), yes. In a nutshell, that sounds pretty close.

The link that Aria posted states this about infallibility:

"Orthodoxy upholds the reality that the Church, gathered together in Council under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is guided in making correct decisions and in enunciating truth."

I haven't yet found anything that relays the idea that decisions made in these Councils, or in any other infallible declarations, must be ratified by the acceptance of "the whole Church" before being considered infallible. Can you help me out with that?

God bless

[Mary of Bethany]

I believe those remarks are accurate. The Church is led by her bishops, but the clergy and laity together discern the Holy Spirit's leading.

Mary

[Reformationist]

I believe those remarks are accurate. The Church is led by her bishops, but the clergy and laity together discern the Holy Spirit's leading.

Mary

And what happens if the clergy and laity are in disagreement about something? Are you forced to deny the label of infallibility?

God bless

[Kristos]

There's no ratification. The Body will not let the Voice make an error.

This is from the Goarch website:

The doctrinal teaching of the Bible and the Ecumenical Synods constitutes the content of the Faith and the unmovable basis of orthodox dogmatics. The body of the Church, which consists of clergy and laymen, is the carrier of the infallibility of the Church, where the Holy Spirit protects it from making error. But the voice of the Church for expressing its infallibility is its highest authority - the Ecumenical Synod in which the whole pleroma (people of the Church) is represented by its bishops.. The decisions of these Synods are sources of the teaching of the Church. There are utterances of the synods (oroi) which directly express the dogmatical teaching of the Church, and some canons which hold dogmatical teachings, although they mainly deal with discipline and administration in the Church. The Ecumenical Synods are the main sources of the truths of the Church. The Symbol of Nicaea established by the First and Second Synods is repeatedly restated in the five Ecumenical Synods that followed through the eighth century.

[Kristos]

And what happens if the clergy and laity are in disagreement about something? Are you forced to deny the label of infallibility?

God bless

They work it out. Happens all the time.

[Reformationist]

But the voice of the Church for expressing its infallibility is its highest authority - the Ecumenical Synod in which the whole pleroma (people of the Church) is represented by its bishops.

Does this mean that every member of the church is not polled on their views about what is put forth but, rather, they have a bishop who accepts or rejects on their behalf?

God bless

[Reformationist]

They work it out. Happens all the time.

Seems like an odd thing to have to happen for pronouncements to be accepted by the church as "infallible." I understand people misunderstanding or taking issue with a pronouncement at which point their bishop would instruct them on why it was accepted as infallible but, to say that the laity takes part in determining what is, and is not, infallible is very strange.

Are you guys contending that when the laity comes together they, also, are protected from error?

God bless

[Nickolai]

Seems like an odd thing to have to happen for pronouncements to be accepted by the church as "infallible." I understand people misunderstanding or taking issue with a pronouncement at which point their bishop would instruct them on why it was accepted as infallible but, to say that the laity takes part in determining what is, and is not, infallible is very strange.

Are you guys contending that when the laity comes together they, also, are protected from error?

God bless
It's not that we somehow trust some sort of Infallible democracy. We believe that the Holy Spirit works most clearly in Council. So when the Church as a full body reaches a consensus on something, we believe that it was the Holy Spirit guiding her to reach that decision.

But there really are various levels of belief, and we don't pronounce many infallible decrees. Pronouncement of dogma takes a very large consensus (i.e. as much of the Church as can show up to a council),and most dogma was already established many hundreds of years ago, so there isn't much need for infallible declarations now. Most conciliar decisions made today are on matters of local Church government, and bioethical issues every once in a while.

Reader Nikolai

[choirfiend]

Yes--think of this NOT so much as "taking a vote." We dont get ballots in the mail about doctrinal issues. But there have been things that have happened like Bishops attending a council where they made decisions/pronouncements that went against the teaching the people (laity) back at home KNEW. The people, when the bishops came back from the council, completely rejected the teachings of that council and sent their bishops back to reconvene.

Can anyone name that event for me? I always forget which it was--but basically, it is a pretty rare thing, since most bishops are not out to change or create new doctrine. Councils name or define church teachings--they dont come up with new teachings.

[Akathist]

One of your fellow EO stated "The Church as a whole is infalliable, not a man, or certain men. The appointed men decide on certain things but the WHOLE CHURCH must accept their decisions for them to be considered infalliable."

He also stated that, "No decision, when made, is said to be infalliable, but must stand through time and be accepted by the Church as a whole to be pronounced infallible."

Please, if you are inclined, explain whether these claims accurately represent your church's teachings on the issue of infallibility.

I would appreciate it if the person who made those statements refrain from answering as it is obvious that he already feels that those statements are in keeping with his church's views.

Thank you,
God bless

I strongly agree with the statements about the Orthodox Church. Why would you think this is not the truth? It is as if you want to assume that the person is misrepresenting us. But in fact, this statement is very much true and proven repeatedly in our history to be true.

[Knowledge3]

And what happens if the clergy and laity are in disagreement about something? Are you forced to deny the label of infallibility?

God bless

The laity is the (laos) body of Christ in the Church.

The bishops of the Orthodox Church are usually singular and in agreement with each other.

If a serious problem arises, they will convene together in holy fellowship and anathemize the specific problem. :priest:

[Reformationist]

Why would you think this is not the truth?

Since you're asking me, the idea that people enjoy some level of a corporate infallibility just because they're all in agreement is an untenable stance. They could all be wrong. The only way, in my opinion, to support such a view is to start off with the assumption that it is already true.

It is as if you want to assume that the person is misrepresenting us.

Other than feeling as if such an assertation could not possibly be the view of your church, I didn't have any preconceived desire to accuse that person of misrepresentation. Simply put, the claim seem too outlandish to be true so I came here to find out if it was.

But in fact, this statement is very much true and proven repeatedly in our history to be true.

Well then, I have my answer.

Thank you,
God bless

[Akathist]

Since you're asking me, the idea that people enjoy some level of a corporate infallibility just because they're all in agreement is an untenable stance. They could all be wrong. The only way, in my opinion, to support such a view is to start off with the assumption that it is already true.



Other than feeling as if such an assertation could not possibly be the view of your church, I didn't have any preconceived desire to accuse that person of misrepresentation. Simply put, the claim seem too outlandish to be true so I came here to find out if it was.



Well then, I have my answer.

Thank you,
God bless

Your reply is interesting to me as it reminds me so much of myself at one time. I believed of course in the work of the Holy Spirit in individual's as a protestant (United Methodist then Pentecostal.) But I was unfamiliar with the work of the Holy Spirit on groups and at first I was kind of resistant to that idea. However, when reading about Orthodox History I could genuinely see this work in play.

One of the things to keep in mind that is "infallability" of the Church is determined after a great long time. Because Orthodoxy is such an ancient religion we don't think about time in the same way that I used to as a Pentecostal. Something is proven to be right or not right over the course of one or more hundreds of years often in Orthodoxy.

Our beliefs and main Traditions have not changed in over a thousand years. That is another proof that they are infallable beliefs and main Traditions. We believe that this is the work of the Holy Spirit working amongst individual's as a group. (I know that sounds odd, but I can't seem to describe it differently. EAch individual is inspired by the Holy Spirit into union with the others in belief and main Traditions.)

There are of course going to be some minor differences in individual's and between cultures, but the Orthodox Church is bigger then individual's and cultures and that is what keeps us one faith.

I hope that in time you can see that this belief about our church is something that could be a reasonable belief even if you do not agree with it personally.

[Reformationist]

Something is proven to be right or not right over the course of one or more hundreds of years often in Orthodoxy.

How long must something stand to be accepted as incontrovertibly infallible?

Our beliefs and main Traditions have not changed in over a thousand years. That is another proof that they are infallable beliefs and main Traditions.

Um...so if something doesn't change in a long time that means it is proven to be infallible? Really? :scratch:

God bless

[Akathist]

How long must something stand to be accepted as incontrovertibly infallible?



Um...so if something doesn't change in a long time that means it is proven to be infallible? Really? :scratch:

God bless

Well, I believe that the main beliefs and main Traditions (capitial "T") are the absolute Truth and represent in fact the fullness of Truth and that would make them infallable to me. I understand from talking to others that this is a common and agreed upon opinion by almost all Orthodox throughout the world. (We might disagree on little things like pews and descriptions of the afterlife, but the main stuff like Christ is God and the content of the Nicene Creed, etc etc are infallable truths as well as our main Traditions like the Eucharist and icons are absolute truths and belief in them is what we mean by believing the Church is infallable.)

Would a belief that is inspired to one person and followed locally for a dozen years be more likely to be infallable to you over beliefs and practices that have not changed substantially in over a thousand years and are found globally throught out the entire world?

I understand the Pope of Rome claims his official decrees and so forth are infallable. We would not agree with him about that even though through out the world there are Catholic who do agree and who all in union follow his decrees. So, keep in mind we think of our Church as infallable and that is what the heart of this discussion, not on who all believes what and for how long. I only used that as an example and I am sure that it is not the best example.

I can not however find a way to explain this to you. All I know is that things that did not fit into place about my beliefs have through the working of the Holy Spirit to unite me with the Orthodox Church and all that that means and I believe that the Holy Spirit does the same to others and leads us Orthodox all to the Truth by uniting us to the Orthodox Church.

[Reformationist]

Would a belief that is inspired to one person and followed locally for a dozen years be more likely to be infallable to you over beliefs and practices that have not changed substantially in over a thousand years and are found globally throught out the entire world?

XR, I don't believe that anyone, apart from God, is infallible so it wouldn't matter to me whether a belief was a dozen years old or a billion years old. If a belief is truly from God, a rather difficult assertation to prove, in my opinion, if it is not found in the pages of Holy Scripture, it matters not how long ago it was revealed. Conversely, there are numerous beliefs held by peolpe throughout history that survive to this day. They are certainly not infallible beliefs. This is proof positive that the length of time a belief is held does not dictate whether it is infallible. If it comes from God, it is infallible the minute it comes from Him, regardless of wether the body of Christ ever ratifies that belief.

In short, I don't believe the Church establishes the truth of God's revelation. I think the Church acknowledges and receives the truth of God's revelation.

I understand the Pope of Rome claims his official decrees and so forth are infallable. We would not agree with him about that even though through out the world there are Catholic who do agree and who all in union follow his decrees. So, keep in mind we think of our Church as infallable and that is what the heart of this discussion, not on who all believes what and for how long. I only used that as an example and I am sure that it is not the best example.

Well, I'm not Roman either so I would not endorse papal infallibility as tenable either.

I can not however find a way to explain this to you. All I know is that things that did not fit into place about my beliefs have through the working of the Holy Spirit to unite me with the Orthodox Church and all that that means and I believe that the Holy Spirit does the same to others and leads us Orthodox all to the Truth by uniting us to the Orthodox Church.

I see. Well, thanks.

God bless

[The Virginian]

One of your fellow EO stated "The Church as a whole is infalliable, not a man, or certain men. The appointed men decide on certain things but the WHOLE CHURCH must accept their decisions for them to be considered infalliable."

He also stated that, "No decision, when made, is said to be infalliable, but must stand through time and be accepted by the Church as a whole to be pronounced infallible."

Please, if you are inclined, explain whether these claims accurately represent your church's teachings on the issue of infallibility.

I would appreciate it if the person who made those statements refrain from answering as it is obvious that he already feels that those statements are in keeping with his church's views.

Thank you,
God bless

Just as those who wished to attack the divinity of Jesus, by denying that the Virgin Mary is indeed the Theotokos, they also deny the infallibility of the Church by, by saying it's only made up of men who can and often are, wrong. This is in fact a double attack, for it denies the veracity of the Scriptures, which tell us that the church is "...the guardian and protector of the truth..." and "...the body and bride of Christ..."
The Seven Holy Councils were guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit of God. Their decisions were found to not be in conflict with the Scriptures ( which say of themselves that "...men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God..."); therefore they were received as infallible. Any decision, regardless of whether it stands the test of time, if it is in conflict with the Scriptures, can never be supported as truth. Case in point, the heresy of Bishop Arian.

an unworthy servant

[irishseventysix]

In short, I don't believe the Church establishes the truth of God's revelation. I think the Church acknowledges and receives the truth of God's revelation.


No, we don't establish the Truth of God's revelation. We do receive it and ackowledge it, as you say.

However, we each hold a sort of check on one another, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, in the way the interpretations and practices that Christ delivered to the Apostles to pass to each successive generation, on how the purity of those things are preserved in Church canons and in practice.

Again, we don't innovate theology. So that's not the issue. We are helped by the Holy Spirit to read and interpret and understand and apply that faith, once delivered, in unadulterated form, spirit, and understanding, as they were given to the Apostles to pass down to us generationally through the ages.

Through council and communication and coming together as a community and seeking Him, the Holy Spirit helps us discern these things in order to make wise and important decisions, which is the way it was in Acts 15:25-29 at the Council of Jerusalem.

"So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul—men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."

Notice they didn't innovate on theology. Neither have our councils.

[Iacobus]

XR, I don't believe that anyone, apart from God, is infallible so it wouldn't matter to me whether a belief was a dozen years old or a billion years old. If a belief is truly from God, a rather difficult assertation to prove, in my opinion, if it is not found in the pages of Holy Scripture, it matters not how long ago it was revealed. Conversely, there are numerous beliefs held by peolpe throughout history that survive to this day. They are certainly not infallible beliefs. This is proof positive that the length of time a belief is held does not dictate whether it is infallible. If it comes from God, it is infallible the minute it comes from Him, regardless of wether the body of Christ ever ratifies that belief.

In short, I don't believe the Church establishes the truth of God's revelation. I think the Church acknowledges and receives the truth of God's revelation.



Well, I'm not Roman either so I would not endorse papal infallibility as tenable either.



I see. Well, thanks.

God bless

If you don't mind a late entry into this, I can see where you would be skeptical of 'corporate infallibility'. Heaven knows every other group I belong to is prone to error great and small. Our common experience with human organizations tells us clearly that while two heads may be better than one, a whole crowd can not only be hugely wrong, but will almost never achieve any level of real consensus. So far, we think alike.

The difference, as expressed by Xenia Rose and others, is that we do not consider the Church to be a human organization. Of course, it is populated by humans, sinners each and every one, so at times the Church can look like it is all over the map, without a firm consensus on one issue or another. And, of course, we are not immune from the occasional evil person, a bad bishop or priest -- or even deacon -- who will bring disrepute on the Church.

Yet we firmly believe that in the long run the Church is indeed infallible, because the Holy Spirit works in it and through it. As a Christian yourself, you would probably endorse the idea that God is not limited in the way that we are limited. He uses us sinners to achieve His purpose, and our ecclesiology insists that the Church is not just His work, but His Bride. Would He leave her bereft?

As I say, there are times when it appears the Church has fallen into error. For example, when Arianism was rampant it appeared as if the Church had fallen into it. Jerome wrote that "the whole world awoke, and found itself Arian". Yet over time, the ship righted itself, Arianism was shaken off, and the right course resumed.

That is why we have learned to be patient. Over time, by the guiding of the Holy Spirit, the Church finds its oneness on each issue that arises. It may be quick, or it may be agonizingly slow. But we get there.

Fr. Deacon James

[icxn]

... if it is not found in the pages of Holy Scripture, it matters not how long ago it was revealed.
Can you prove this statement?

Thank you

[buzuxi02]

reformationist,

Councils simply define what the church has aways believed.
A council may need to clarify a teaching and/or clarify the language used etc. Or censure a guilty party teaching false doctrine by arriving at what the church has always held, (acts 15.1-4).

If the council is a false council then in time it will not be recieved into the 'CONSCIENCE OF THE CHURCH'. Such a council will be forgotten and historians will label it as a robber synod. The Holy Spirit leads us to truth. It is up to the laity as well as its clergy to defend the faith once delivered and pass it down to future generations unadultered.

The laity itself is the preserver of the faith. Thus a council must only define what the christians already hold. The consensus of the church is that which is believed in all places, and all times from the begining.

Thats why we shun individual interpretation of scripture by those who claim they are lead by the Holy Spirit to the conclusions they did.
Regardless of how holy the one interpreting is, the teaching must agree (see Gal 2.2.) and proven to be held by christians past and present, at all times , in all places (not just the churches of new york for example) and be traced back to 'time immemorable'. This is what is meant by the conscience of the Church, This is the faith embedded into the heart of the Church past, present & future.

[repentant]

Hmm...:)

[Akathist]

Hmm...:)

I could not agree with you more. ;)


This topic is not aften discussed in TAW but I am glad to see it. When I was an inquirer I just could not wrap my sorry brain around this. My Priest tried to describe it this to me and I remember reading a bit about what the Church meant to people in TAW although not directly in this same manner.

The first book on Orthodox History had clear descriptions of this but I still did not embrace it. The second was also open in its description of the fight against Arianism and the Oconoclast movement, etc. The Third book I remember thinking that the histories were starting to become more compelling but I still didn't fully "get" this idea. It was not until I attended my first "Sunday of Orthodoxy" service that I really came to embrace this idea.

Some things are too abstract to be explained with simple words. In my case, I think those words set the seeds for me but the Church's real teaching comes directly from te work of the Holy Spirit in our services, imo. I had to experience that service and know that the same service was going on all over the world. We had our service in an Antiocian Church (I am OCA) and there were people of various jurisdictions present. Months before this there was a TV clip about Theophany in Russia and I could not understand the Slavanic being said but I could tell exactly were in the service they were just the same. This sense of unity really impacted me but it was not until the Sunday of Orthodoxy (my first one) that I really came to accept this.

To the OP, it may be that you will not ever agree with this belief that we have. I still have great hope that you will at least appreciate our belief and respect it in time. I am very glad you asked us about it here in TAW where we could explain without having a big debate.

[repentant]

Good post Xenia, but the hmm..was reffering to I am the reason for the OP..and although I knew everyone would agree, it was good to see the unity..:crosseo: :bow:

[Akathist]

Did you think I didn't know you were the one being quoted?

I might lurk but I lurk with my eyes open.

[repentant]

I'm sure you could have known, it's not top secret..:P

[NewToLife]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformationist
... if it is not found in the pages of Holy Scripture, it matters not how long ago it was revealed.

Can you prove this statement?

Thank you


Even if he could and everything needs to be stated in scripture he'd still be lumbered with the issue of who actually decides if its really in scripture anyway.

[Dust and Ashes]

I'm sure you could have known, it's not top secret..:P

Awwww...I thought we were playing Clue. I was just about to say, "It was repentant in GT with the censer." :D

[Knowledge3]

I understand the peculiar nature of the characteristic of infallibility in the Orthodox Church as a whole and I'm just an unlearned cathechumen.

[Kristos]

Fr James said it better than I could. I agree with XR, that this and many other concepts of Orthodox are a little hard to explain in a forum like this. And so, it's a little dangerous to do so, because it's so easy to misunderstand. It has taken me years to really wrap my arms around some of them and I'm still working on it. The most difficult thing about Orthodoxy, is that it needs to be taken as a whole to be truly understood. And that takes time. But it is truly amazing how all the pieces fall together. I think it was XR who referenced Kallistos Ware and I would recommend his book 'The Orthodox Way" to anyone truly interested in understanding Orthodoxy. Of course, this book isn't perfect, but it's a good start to understanding some of the concepts.

[Knowledge3]

Exactly.

In Greek "Katholikos" meaning according to the whole is crucial to understanding doctrinal Orthodoxy. :priest:

[Nickolai]

Exactly.

In Greek "Katholikos" meaning according to the whole is crucial to understanding doctrinal Orthodoxy. :priest:
As is silence and prayer.