Is the Orthodox church Infallible?

[ArmyMatt]

Re: divorce, and the thread I referenced. It’s one of the issues that has clear Church teaching that either people pretend it (the Church) doesn’t (have), or simply ignore it and instead reference whatever they personally believe.

ah, gotcha. I misread what I quoted. I thought there was a silence on TAW about this.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Sure, it becomes a problem because people start saying, "Okay, so if your bishop says the world is flat..." First, they won't, and that's not what 'infallibility' is about, and it certainly wouldn't apply to a random statement from a bishop. "Okay, so revising that, if we have an ecumenical council and they say the world is flat..." A frustrating sort of conversation to have.

In the history of the Orthodox Church, there were thousands of bishops who sinned and made mistakes. It doesn't mean anything. The voice of the church is not the voice of the bishop. In the Orthodox tradition, the voice of the church is the decision of councils, and each subsequent council cannot contradict what was decided at the previous one. If there is an eighth council, then it is competent to make only those decisions that do not contradict the first seven. The agreement of the holy fathers is the same: what the holy fathers of the 3rd millennium will say will be valid only in the part that does not contradict what the majority of the holy fathers of the 1st millennium said. Therefore, study the holy fathers of the 1st millennium and everything that does not correspond to them is not the voice of the church, no matter how many bishops say it, even 1000, even 100,000 bishops. If it contradicts the holy fathers of the 1st millennium, it is not valid.

 

[rusmeister]

In the history of the Orthodox Church, there were thousands of bishops who sinned and made mistakes. It doesn't mean anything. The voice of the church is not the voice of the bishop. In the Orthodox tradition, the voice of the church is the decision of councils, and each subsequent council cannot contradict what was decided at the previous one. If there is an eighth council, then it is competent to make only those decisions that do not contradict the first seven. The agreement of the holy fathers is the same: what the holy fathers of the 3rd millennium will say will be valid only in the part that does not contradict what the majority of the holy fathers of the 1st millennium said. Therefore, study the holy fathers of the 1st millennium and everything that does not correspond to them is not the voice of the church, no matter how many bishops say it, even 1000, even 100,000 bishops. If it contradicts the holy fathers of the 1st millennium, it is not valid.

This is what I have been saying all along, and I do get static from the people who talk about a “living Tradition”. The reason they use that term is to cover for the fact that they mean “changing Tradition”, in which they confuse developmental changes that affirm what was always believed, like liturgical practice, with the idea that doctrine actually changes in accordance with “discoveries” and claims of the sciences of this world. This attempt to synthesize worldly knowledge, such as it is, with Holy Tradition is understandable, because we want to feel that what we think we know is coherent and holistic. The trouble is that it invariably leads to holding worldly science, the claims and thoughts of men, on the same level of truth as divine revelation, on which Tradition stands, and when conflict arises, such as whether men evolved from lower life forms, or whether the knowledge of men of the past of sexuality was inferior to our own, invariably preference is given to the worldly science and it is Holy Tradition that is expected to adapt and change to conform to the modern claims. In this manner, modern believers come to imagine that the fathers of the Church were relatively ignorant, and that now “we know better”, and so have a right to correct their consensus with the support of modern hierarchs.

And so believers cease to believe that Adam was a single concrete man like you or me, because they realize that the narrative of human evolution really does conflict with the narrative the fathers believed through faith, that, wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, really does conflict with a narrative in which death reigned long before there was any man to do any sinning to bring death into the world.

They come to believe that it is loving to affirm sexual anarchy, not seeing that the attitude makes them “more loving” than Christ Himself, and organize to bring that anarchy into Church life, whether it be an approval of the alphabet soup of sexual sin, or the effort to make women into clergy in defiance of our understanding that God created the two sexes for a reason, and said it was good.

They come to practices that make a mockery of Holy Communion, accepting teachings of fear from worldly scientists, not seeing that there really IS a level of unbelief in fearing to administer from the Chalice based on concerns of this world, in effective rejection of the liturgical call to lay aside all worldly care during the Eucharistic liturgy.

And so the world comes into the Church, to “teach” and modify it to fit the world.

 

[abacabb3]

Infallibility is discerned through consensus, same as Apostolic times in Acts 15:28. This is why St Vincent de Lerins speaks of the true faith being held since antiquity, everywhere, by all.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

This is what I have been saying all along, and I do get static from the people who talk about a “living Tradition”. The reason they use that term is to cover for the fact that they mean “changing Tradition”, in which they confuse developmental changes that affirm what was always believed, like liturgical practice, with the idea that doctrine actually changes in accordance with “discoveries” and claims of the sciences of this world. This attempt to synthesize worldly knowledge, such as it is, with Holy Tradition is understandable, because we want to feel that what we think we know is coherent and holistic. The trouble is that it invariably leads to holding worldly science, the claims and thoughts of men, on the same level of truth as divine revelation, on which Tradition stands, and when conflict arises, such as whether men evolved from lower life forms, or whether the knowledge of men of the past of sexuality was inferior to our own, invariably preference is given to the worldly science and it is Holy Tradition that is expected to adapt and change to conform to the modern claims. In this manner, modern believers come to imagine that the fathers of the Church were relatively ignorant, and that now “we know better”, and so have a right to correct their consensus with the support of modern hierarchs.

And so believers cease to believe that Adam was a single concrete man like you or me, because they realize that the narrative of human evolution really does conflict with the narrative the fathers believed through faith, that, wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, really does conflict with a narrative in which death reigned long before there was any man to do any sinning to bring death into the world.

They come to believe that it is loving to affirm sexual anarchy, not seeing that the attitude makes them “more loving” than Christ Himself, and organize to bring that anarchy into Church life, whether it be an approval of the alphabet soup of sexual sin, or the effort to make women into clergy in defiance of our understanding that God created the two sexes for a reason, and said it was good.

They come to practices that make a mockery of Holy Communion, accepting teachings of fear from worldly scientists, not seeing that there really IS a level of unbelief in fearing to administer from the Chalice based on concerns of this world, in effective rejection of the liturgical call to lay aside all worldly care during the Eucharistic liturgy.

And so the world comes into the Church, to “teach” and modify it to fit the world.

Yes, over the last 300 years people have had stronger faith in science than faith in God. Despite the fact that science, since it declared its claims to the truth, has repeatedly changed its opinion to the exact opposite. Already in the 18th century they said that the Christian faith contradicts science, but science is infallible. At the same time, we know how infallible it is. There was a period when science considered the Sun to be the center of the Universe, the center of the cosmos. At first America was considered India, and then California was considered an island. Almost until the end of the 19th century, some scientists still believed that our planet was hollow and subject to internal exploration. These scientists believed that the size of the void was not much smaller than the size of the Earth itself. And science was wrong about genetics. And about the lack of water outside our planet. Sir Isaac Newton was a great scientist and made great contributions to physics. But this did not stop him from believing in alchemy, which is now considered a pseudoscience based on myths. Until the end of his days, Newton believed that one day he would be able to turn ordinary metal into gold. And they were wrong about germs, and science knew neither antibiotics nor quanta. Also, science did not know about atomic energy and radiation. They invented the steam engine, the light bulb and the radio and decided that science already knew everything, and God and His Revelation were no longer needed.

And these are just some examples. In every century, the scientific misconceptions of the previous century are exposed. And yet, since the 18th century (if not earlier), science has been considered absolutely correct.

In addition, there is always information that cannot be obtained experimentally. For example, students will never learn through experimentation what a professor thinks unless the professor is willing to reveal himself to them. In the same way, God can reveal His secrets. And this is the only way to recognize them.

Therefore, I agree with you that God's revelation, the Bible, is the only way to know God's will for mankind.

What you write has already happened in human history. King David was godly. His son Solomon, towards the end of his life, became interested in idolatry. Then the kings in Jerusalem changed. There were kings who placed idols right in the temple of God and organized pagan ritual sexual orgies, sacrificing people (even their children) to idols. It seems that King Manasseh did it. At some point, God's people forgot about God and did not want to hear anything about the Holy Scriptures. But God sobered everyone up with the Babylonian captivity. When the Jews lost everything, they looked for God.

As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under heaven, all such events have already happening.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Infallibility is discerned through consensus, same as Apostolic times in Acts 15:28. This is why St Vincent de Lerins speaks of the true faith being held since antiquity, everywhere, by all.

I agree. But since the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes, we do not have the right to amend what was considered correct by the holy fathers everywhere and by everyone before us.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Bishop Jonah addresses the issue of "Infallibility" in this catechesis class: @13:28