Is the Orthodox church Infallible?

[Orthodox@Traditions]

Besides Christ (God) is the OC infallible? I read this book and it says this:

Fr. John Meyendorff (1926-1992 A.D.) taught the following:


“Without ever being considered infallible individually, the bishops—separately or gathered in council—were the normal witnesses to the true teaching…The ecumenical councils never became organs of infallibility whose decisions were accepted automatically […] The first council of Nicaea (325), was rejected for more than half a century before it obtained general recognition and came to be regarded as the symbol of an ecumenical council par excellence”

Fr. Sergius teach again:

“It must be remembered that even ecumenical councils are not external organs established for the infallible proclamation of the truth and instituted expressly for that. Such a proposition would lead to the conclusion that, without councils, the Church would cease to be ‘catholic’ and infallible.”

(The Orthodox Church by Sergius Bulgakov (1935), Translated into English first published in 1935 by Centenary Press, London, Reprinted and revised translation 1988 (cited here) published by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New York, 1988, p. 73).

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Mod Hat ON

This thread has been moved.
Please continue discussion here, bearing in mind the TAW Statement of Purpose and the CF Congregational Forums rules.

Mod Hat OFF​

 

[ArmyMatt]

it’s the consensus of the Church (which is the Body of the infallible Christ, guided by the infallible Spirit) which is infallible. the councils are infallible when understood as the Church understands them.

 

[nutroll]

I generally think of infallibility and inerrancy as western concepts that have limited use in speaking about the Church. Implied in the terms themselves is the notion that there is a mechanism which keeps things from going wrong. So whether that is a special grace given to the Pope, or the belief that scripture interprets itself without error, it misses the point. There is nothing to stop any individual, or even large groups of people from getting things wrong.

We sometimes use such terms when there is a far better term, "truth." Orthodoxy is the body of Christ, and Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We have these things in Orthodoxy because He is Orthodoxy and He protects His flock, He guides them, and He calls them to repentance when they fall away. Our job is to hold fast to what has been handed down to us. As such, we don't make up new things even if we occasionally have to express these truths with new words or expressions. A mechanism of Infallibility is really only needed if one is planning on changing something.

 

[zippy2006]

A mechanism of Infallibility is really only needed if one is planning on changing something.

It seems to me that infallibility is still important even if nothing is ever changed, because people will wonder whether the unchanging things are fallible.

 

[nutroll]

It seems to me that infallibility is still important even if nothing is ever changed, because people will wonder whether the unchanging things are fallible.

I would argue that unchanging things can be true or untrue, but they can't be fallible or infallible. Fallibility speaks to what will occur, not what already is. It is the ability to fail or falter, not the state of having failed.

 

[zippy2006]

I would argue that unchanging things can be true or untrue, but they can't be fallible or infallible. Fallibility speaks to what will occur, not what already is. It is the ability to fail or falter, not the state of having failed.

Yes, I think you are basically right. Fallibility has to do with the source of a claim. A sentence can't be infallible, but the speaker of a sentence can be infallible. But then we do often apply the word 'infallible' to sentences, and this seems to mean, "This sentence came from an infallible source, and therefore it is not only true but its truth is also ensured."

But my point seems to hold. Even if the Orthodox Church maintains unchanging doctrine and never adds anything new, people will still wonder whether those doctrines are true and whether the Orthodox Church—which has in this case held fast to the unchanging doctrine—is itself reliable and even infallible. "Was the Orthodox Church right in holding fast to this doctrine, and not changing it?" "Yes, the Orthodox Church was right. It is infallible. It cannot be wrong."

The broader point is simply that the decision to not change something is also a decision that can be questioned, and thus the question of reliability or trustworthy-ness or infallibility will still arise even if there are no novelties or changes.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The broader point is simply that the decision to not change something is also a decision that can be questioned, and thus the question of reliability or trustworthy-ness or infallibility will still arise even if there are no novelties or changes.

I think it’s what you mean by change. Orthodox terminology has certainly adapted and changed as the Church has encountered various heresies and cultures, but the theology hasn’t changed since it’s about Christ and He doesn’t change.

 

[rusmeister]

I think it’s what you mean by change. Orthodox terminology has certainly adapted and changed as the Church has encountered various heresies and cultures, but the theology hasn’t changed since it’s about Christ and He doesn’t change.

This is why I would like to see broader and more open challenge by both clergy and laity to the neo-gnostocism that is sweeping through the Church. I think the semantics of infallibility vs truth to be related, but less important than that, because it is moderns inside the Church challenging the teachings of the Church as truth. People really do read and listen to and are guided by false shepherds who publish in “The Wheel”, Fordham University, AFR, etc, and far too many of the clergy and laity are silent, and so these false teachers flourish and prosper, and get broad recognition by having the backing of seemingly Orthodox ministries and hierarchs.
That’s the main thing tempting me to think the Orthodox Church is not the Church; not so much the presence of false teachers, but the silence of most others, the acceptance that specific ideas of this world are tolerable in and compatible with the Orthodox Faith, ranging from the denial that there is a consensus of the fathers and that it is authoritative to correct us to the effective approval, silence or tolerance of sexual anarchy within the Church by its members.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That’s the main thing tempting me to think the Orthodox Church is not the Church; not so much the presence of false teachers, but the silence of most others, the acceptance that specific ideas of this world are tolerable in and compatible with the Orthodox Faith, ranging from the denial that there is a consensus of the fathers and that it is authoritative to correct us to the effective approval, silence or tolerance of sexual anarchy within the Church by its members.

I’d be cautious here. if the presence of bad teachers, heresy and schism, and silence of folks is tempting you to think Orthodoxy isn’t the true Church, you’re putting too much faith in man. these issues (heresy of the wicked and silence of the faithful) have existed from the beginning, and sexual confusion is our theological cross.

 

[rusmeister]

I’d be cautious here. if the presence of bad teachers, heresy and schism, and silence of folks is tempting you to think Orthodoxy isn’t the true Church, you’re putting too much faith in man. these issues (heresy of the wicked and silence of the faithful) have existed from the beginning, and sexual confusion is our theological cross.

Of course. I understand that intellectually. But I am speaking as much against the silence of otherwise good people who may believe rightly, but don’t want to “rock the boat”, or think that potential offense caused by speaking the truth in love worse than silence. It’s worse when it’s clergy, because people look to them to speak when an Orthodox Christian misleads himself or others. It puts me in the position of having to believe despite my unbelief. People all around me are identifying as Orthodox and speaking unOrthodoxy. That they might sin, and admit their sin, doesn’t faze me. That they deny Church teaching is what it is, and the silence or even acquiescence of others, priests or laity, does. I have to go on believing despite that. But woe to them!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Of course. I understand that intellectually. But I am speaking as much against the silence of otherwise good people who may believe rightly, but don’t want to “rock the boat”, or think that potential offense caused by speaking the truth in love worse than silence. It’s worse when it’s clergy, because people look to them to speak when an Orthodox Christian misleads himself or others. It puts me in the position of having to believe despite my unbelief. People all around me are identifying as Orthodox and speaking unOrthodoxy. That they might sin, and admit their sin, doesn’t faze me. That they deny Church teaching is what it is, and the silence or even acquiescence of others, priests or laity, does. I have to go on believing despite that. But woe to them!

right, but this is nothing new

 

[zippy2006]

I think it’s what you mean by change. Orthodox terminology has certainly adapted and changed as the Church has encountered various heresies and cultures, but the theology hasn’t changed since it’s about Christ and He doesn’t change.

Right, and since this topic in particular is so tricky I was sort of trying to sidestep it. Basically my idea is that Orthodoxy can still benefit from the use of the concept of infallibility, even in the case where Orthodoxy is affirmed to be unchanging.*

* Whether "unchanging" is meant in a strict sense or a more nuanced sense.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Right, and since this topic in particular is so tricky I was sort of trying to sidestep it. Basically my idea is that Orthodoxy can still benefit from the use of the concept of infallibility, even in the case where Orthodoxy is affirmed to be unchanging.*

* Whether "unchanging" is meant in a strict sense or a more nuanced sense.

yeah, when it comes to that word, we gotta be careful in how we define it and what we’re saying is infallible.

 

[rusmeister]

right, but this is nothing new

Sure. And the only thing that could be considered “sort of new” is what is “new” about any heresy when it sweeps the Church, is the particular nature of people coming in thinking everything subjective and up to the personal veto of what they happen to believe that Church teaching might actually contradict. But that said, it’s just a different form of the same old thing. And I am sure that Christians of the past were equally thrown into despair when this unbelief, or perhaps, synchronicity of Church members with the world.

A good example is the thread I started on that podcast, hosted by AFR, about divorce. The Louhs are no doubt good and kind people. But they and their guests are just teaching what the world has always taught, in effective contradiction to Church teaching, and because it’s on a rspected platform with the Orthodox label, a lot of people are going to think it IS Church teaching. The Christian ideal is high and hard, and requires sacrifice and/or martrydom from us, but we’d rather pass, and just live “nice” lives here by the standards of the world.

I’ll be happy to be proved wrong about silence on the issue here at TAW. But I have learned not to hold my breath. Our teachings on sexuality are highly unpopular, even in the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I’ll be happy to be proved wrong about silence on the issue here at TAW. But I have learned not to hold my breath.

sorry, but what?

 

[ArseniusTheSilent]

I find words like infallibility so problematic to have a rational discussion about in the modern context these days. So much modern bias gets pulled into the topic and battle lines get drawn without the ability to converse about it.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

The concept of "Orthodox Church" can be viewed from different angles.

Let's start from the most earthly to the Divine.
1. The Orthodox Church as a legal entity, as an organization consisting of people. I think that there is no need to answer here, and it is so clear that people are not sinless.

2. An earthly militant church made up of faithful church members who fight to save themselves and each other. All the ascetics considered themselves sinners, although God subsequently glorified them as saints. Although its decrees, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are infallible, and the concept of "pillar and ground of the truth" can also apply to this part of the church (to the decisions of the apostolic and ecumenical councils, the consent of the holy fathers on various issues).

3. Heavenly triumphant church. After death, it is no longer possible to sin, therefore those whom God has already accepted into paradise are holy, and this part of the church is holy. It is my understanding that this part is primarily considered the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

 

[gzt]

I find words like infallibility so problematic to have a rational discussion about in the modern context these days. So much modern bias gets pulled into the topic and battle lines get drawn without the ability to converse about it.

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.

 

[rusmeister]

sorry, but what?

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.