|
0 members (),
322
guests, and
93
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,589
Members6,167
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I have been having a conversation about infallibility elsewhere and wanted to get some additional thoughts and opinions from some different perspectives. Although not everyone agreed with me, I stated that as Orthodox Christians we certainly believe in an infallible church. My particular question is with the councils. This is what I said Infallibility has to be found in the church, because the church is the body of Christ founded on the sacraments. The Eucharist becomes the very body and blood of Christ, the truth itself. It is the apostolic charism to bind and loose and that is carried forth by the bishops, and it is under their authority that the sacraments are brought to us. Absolute truth is not limited to the church or the sacraments, but certainly we do have clear indentifiable channels of the truth, and therefore we very much know certain things are infallible. This in no way confines the truth, and actually if we had no identifiable channels of truth (the sacraments, revelation, or the ecumenical synods); truth itself would be unknown because it would be reduced to complete subjectivity. I would also posit that if one denies the infallible nature of the church, the understanding of the sacraments will inevitably change (as it did in the Reformation).
Whether or not the ecumenical synods are infallible is not a question, and the idea that nothing is infallible is not the "Eastern" view; nor was it the view of the undivided church. The issue in Orthodoxy, which is not settled (again the ecclesiology problem), is what exactly makes a synod ecumenical (and therefore infallible). There are two main views AFAIK are:
It is the proclamation of the synod itself that it is ecumenical.
It is the reception of the synod in the consciousness of the church.
Fr. George Mastrantonis for instance I believe takes the second view when he says
This Church of Christ has in its nature. the tendency to become and to grow; it has the nature to engulf and develop the truths of Revelation; it is to be delved into from time to time in finding and pronouncing the truths of which the Church is the Pillar. The Church, as a whole, is infallible, but not God-inspired to the extent that it has understood the entire depth of the truths and formulated and proclaimed them to the world. The Church by nature and duty from time to time - to settle controversies - formulates, defines and pronounces some of these Revealed truths. In such instances, the Fathers of the Church assembled in synods to discuss the disputed points and to decree and interpret the correct meaning of those truths. In doing so, the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, believe that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, remain pending for acceptance by the "Conscience of the Church", which is the consent of all the faithful, clergy and laity.
The infallibility of the Church does not mean that the Church, in the assembly of the Fathers or in the expression of the Conscience of the Church, has already formally expressed all the truths of faith and norms. The infallibility of the Church is confined to the formulation of truths in question. This infallibility is not wholly a God-inspired energy which would affect the participants of the synod to such an extent that they would be inspired to pronounce all the truths at one time as a whole system of a Christian catechism. The Synod does not formulate a system of beliefs encompassing all Christian teachings and truths, but only endeavors to define the particular disputed truth which was misunderstood and misinterpreted.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp
So Fr. George believes, and it's a common view, that the status of infallibility is dependent on the acceptance of the laity and clergy. I believe this is actually a wholly unacceptable and unsupportable view.
The reality in the undivided church was that it was likely the acceptance of the synods by both Pope and Emperor that gave a council it's final status. The Emperor is of course gone, which leaves the Pope. It is in this sense that I think we can see that infallibility tied in to the office of primacy in this specific situation is not so hard to imagine as being necessary.Taking that rather long winded post in to consideration, what is it that makes a council infallible?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 501
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 501 |
"It is the proclamation of the synod itself that it is ecumenical.
It is the reception of the synod in the consciousness of the church."
This is the Eastern Orthodox statement on the issue and it has worked for about 2,000 years.
Try reading Khomiakov's essay "The Church is One" and his thoughts on sobornost.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
Hello...
The way I see it...Ecumenical Councils are infallible and the Pope of Rome being the "leader" of Apostles or having Primacy is the "spokesperson" of the Council...so that means he's infallible because of the Councils, not on his own.
It's like the Pope is the president of the board of directors (Council) and he is like a spokesperson of the Council. Is that a good analogy?
Quite frankly, don't see why the big controversy on infallibility, probably mainly because the Roman Catholics MIS-interpret it or MIS-understand it.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 175
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 175 |
What you posit as view #2 never saw the light of day until A. Khomiakov introduced his novelty in the 19th Century. Incidentally, I spoke to Dr Sergei Hovornun of the Dept. of External Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate at Orientale Lumen IX in San Diego in 2005; he not only admitted that Khomiakov's view was a novelty but also told me that no serious theologian in the Russian Church holds it any longer.
Yes, the proclamation of the synod itself is important, but not the final determining factor. Remember the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449? That was called as an Ecumenical Council. But it crashed against one rock: the Successor of Peter, Pope Saint Leo I denounced it and it came to nothing. Orthodoxy triumphed at Chalcedon two years later; at which council the Fathers cried out, "Peter has spoken by Leo!"
Each of the Seven Ecumenical Councils venerated by Catholics and Orthodox had final ratification by the Pope of Rome as its ultimate hierarchical criterion. Without the Pope of Rome, no Council can be Ecumenical, and hence infallible in its dogmatic definitions.
I could give you lengthy quotations from Eastern Fathers to verify this, but it would be better to make it your own discovery. I would recommend reading Vladimir Soloviev's Russia and the Universal Church; you can still find an uncut edition through an interlibrary loan. Or you can get the cut version from Catholic Answers under the title, The Russian Church and the Papacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I have trouble accepting Khomiakov's view as well, and it is mentioned in Metropolitan Kallistos' book "The Orthodox Church". It also seems to be essentially the view of Fr. George I quoted above. Metropolitan Kallistos says the following as well This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Hello...
The way I see it...Ecumenical Councils are infallible and the Pope of Rome being the "leader" of Apostles or having Primacy is the "spokesperson" of the Council...so that means he's infallible because of the Councils, not on his own.
It's like the Pope is the president of the board of directors (Council) and he is like a spokesperson of the Council. Is that a good analogy?
Quite frankly, don't see why the big controversy on infallibility, probably mainly because the Roman Catholics MIS-interpret it or MIS-understand it.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine Except SP that the Pope did not even attend any of the seven ecumenical councils, though he did send representatives. But the papal legates were certainly not spokesmen for the council. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I have trouble accepting Khomiakov's view as well, and it is mentioned in Metropolitan Kallistos' book "The Orthodox Church". It also seems to be essentially the view of Fr. George I quoted above. Metropolitan Kallistos says the following as well This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their Church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. I personally think that this is the best that we can do. My own view is that the Church is infallible in the sense that the Church as a whole will never defect from the apostolic faith. However, I don't think that we can give an a priori grounds for what formally makes something infallible. We just intuitively know what is infallible and this is demonstrated by the consensus that emerges throughout history. Yes, this is rather vague and subjective. But any attempt to specify some formal criterion involves circular reasoning, I think. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
[quote=JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Except SP that the Pope did not even attend any of the seven ecumenical councils, though he did send representatives. But the papal legates were certainly not spokesmen for the council.
Joe [/quote]
That CANNOT be!!! PROVE IT! If the Pope wasn't there then the councils can NOT be considered "Ecumenical."
In fact, today, the Orthodox Churches will not have an Ecumenical Council in the future IF the Pope isn't there. That's precisely why the 7th Council was the last one before 1054.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
Hello...
The way I see it...Ecumenical Councils are infallible and the Pope of Rome being the "leader" of Apostles or having Primacy is the "spokesperson" of the Council...so that means he's infallible because of the Councils, not on his own.
It's like the Pope is the president of the board of directors (Council) and he is like a spokesperson of the Council. Is that a good analogy?
Quite frankly, don't see why the big controversy on infallibility, probably mainly because the Roman Catholics MIS-interpret it or MIS-understand it.
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine Except SP that the Pope did not even attend any of the seven ecumenical councils, though he did send representatives. But the papal legates were certainly not spokesmen for the council. Joe That CANNOT be!!! PROVE IT! If the Pope wasn't there then the councils can NOT be considered "Ecumenical." In fact, today, the Orthodox Churches will not have an Ecumenical Council in the future IF the Pope isn't there. That's precisely why the 7th Council was the last one before 1054.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
It is well known that the Pope of Rome did not actually attend any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
WHAT!!!? That CANNOT be!!! Please prove it.
I was told that in order for it to be truly an Ecumenical Councils is for all 5 Patriarchs to be present (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch & Jerusalem).
Are you saying that the Pope never went to ALL or ANY ONE of these first 7 Councils?
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
Last edited by spdundas; 04/20/07 02:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
Remember, as well that papal acceptance was never a "requirement" either. This is revealed through a study of the history of the 5th Ecumenical Council and the difficulties the west had in accepting it.
Last edited by PrJ; 04/20/07 02:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
[quote=JSMelkiteOrthodoxy
Except SP that the Pope did not even attend any of the seven ecumenical councils, though he did send representatives. But the papal legates were certainly not spokesmen for the council.
Joe That CANNOT be!!! PROVE IT! If the Pope wasn't there then the councils can NOT be considered "Ecumenical." In fact, today, the Orthodox Churches will not have an Ecumenical Council in the future IF the Pope isn't there. That's precisely why the 7th Council was the last one before 1054. SPDundas Deaf Byzantine [/quote] SP, actually, there is no reason why the Orthodox couldn't have an Ecumenical council. Take a look at any standard history of the early Church and you will see that that the Bishop of Rome sent legates to the councils, but did not attend. You will also see that not one of the ancient Ecumenical councils was called by the Pope. They were called and presided over by the Byzantine emperor. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Remember, as well that papal acceptance was never a "requirement" either. This is revealed through a study of the history of the 5th Ecumenical Council and the difficulties the west had in accepting it. Father bless, Yes, exactly right. When you go back and read early Church history, you find that no one theory will ever perfectly fit the facts. It is awfully complicated and messy. BTW, I just read through a big chunk of the book on St. Athanasius and Marriage that you recommended and you are right. In fact, I find St. Athanasius' words on the issue of sexuality in marriage to be quite astounding and wonder why his texts are so ignored by historians and theologians. But that is for another thread. Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 04/20/07 02:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
Joe, there is discussion in Orthodoxy over this question. SPDundas is right in stating that some Orthodox have maintained that a Council could not be called without the Bishop of Rome. But this has not been a majority position. The larger problem (and this problem is endemic to Orthodox ecclesiology) is that without an Emperor there is no one with authority to call a Council. Orthodox ecclesiology (as it developed) assumes the presence of an Orthodox emperor and in some ways is dependent upon it. Without an external (the other head of the eagle) authority, Orthodoxy has no centering force.
|
|
|
|
|
