Is this accurate? (infallibility of councils)

[QuantaCura]

Is this an accurate assessment of the Orthodox view of ecumenical councils? Is the "infallibility of all believers" a commonly held doctrine? You never know with wiki so I figured I better check with those in the know

Infallibility of Ecumencical Councils

The Roman Catholic Church holds this doctrine,[1] as do most or all Eastern Orthodox theologians. However, the Orthodox churches accept only the first seven general councils as genuinely ecumenical, while Catholics accept twenty-one. Some Protestants believe in the infallibility of ecumenical councils, but they usually restrict this infallibility to the Christological statements of the first seven councils.

While the Russian Orthodox Church does recognize the first seven ecumenical councils as valid, some Russian Orthodox theologians believe that the infallibility of these councils' statements derived from their acceptance by the faithful (and thus from the infallibility of all believers), and not from the acts of the councils themselves. This differs from the Greek Orthodox view, which accepts that an ecumenical council is itself infallible when pronouncing on a specific matter.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church

 

[QuantaCura]

The way I wrote the above was kind of confusing after I read it--it seemed to imply the RCC believed in the infallibility of all believers. We don't. I added the little title so it doesn't look that way anymore

 

[MariaRegina]

In Orthodoxy, we don't believe that each one of us is infallible, nor do we believe that a particular person can issue infallible statements regarding faith and morals.

And this is a common area between Catholics and Orthodox. Neither of us believe that our saints are infallible.

While Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible when he pronounces matters of faith and morals from his chair (ex cathedra), the Orthodox believe that the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils are infallible, but only in hinesight, through the test of time. That is, the Church (Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Laity) together has decided that those councils are Holy and Ecumenical after the fact.

 

[QuantaCura]

the Orthodox believe that the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils are infallible, but only in hinesight, through the test of time. That is, the Church (Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Laity) together has decided that those councils are Holy and Ecumenical after the fact.

I think this is what was meant by infallibility of all believers, not that each person is individually infallible.

But in other words, an Ecumenical Council is not infallible on its own merits, rather the dogmas it defines are only infallible because they have been ratified by the "test of time."

How does this work specifically? Who makes the final decision that it has stood long enough? Is this decision considered infallible?

 

[Theophorus]

The Russian view is the closest. I am not aware of the Greeks holding a view vastly different than the Russian view stated. To be honest though, the term "infallible" is not one I have run across when reading about the Church.

In view of the Russian belief stated, I have heard it more along this line. That the revelation of God is bestowed on the Church as a whole, and the councils are affirmations or proclomations of the revelation.
This oversimplified statement does not mean to imply that the Church functions only by the consensus of the majority.

 

[QuantaCura]

The Russian view is the closest. I am not aware of the Greeks holding a view vastly different than the Russian view stated. To be honest though, the term "infallible" is not one I have run across when reading about the Church.

In view of the Russian belief stated, I have heard it more along this line. That the revelation of God is bestowed on the Church as a whole, and the councils are affirmations or proclomations of the revelation.
This oversimplified statement does not mean to imply that the Church functions only by the consensus of the majority.

Yeah, I figured as with most things, the East does not get as much into the details as the West--the belief is the truth is preserved in the Church, but they don't specifically get into exactly how this happens.

 

[repentant]

From GOARCH...

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.

Basically when in Synod, the Church Father's believed their decisions where infalliable. But they must be accepted by all to become fully infalliable.


So what does this mean? We can decide not to believe in something anymore, therefore rendering the former decision falliable and change it?

 

[Theophorus]

Yeah, I figured as with most things, the East does not get as much into the details as the West--the belief is the truth is preserved in the Church, but they don't specifically get into exactly how this happens.

Specifically we do. It is the Holy Spirit. Our consistency is viewed as one of the proofs.

The Greeks probably do put the most emphasis in the councils, but not to the degree that it becomes the sole source of revelation. The laity could reject a council.

It's a touchy subject though. The bishops, and hence the councils are the last resort, so to speak. Dogma has just "always been there".

Obedience to the bishop is an important concept, just as obediance at all levels in orthodoxy is stressed. That being said, I have heard the statement made by some concerning a theological matter, "well, if the bishop said that abortion is OK, would you go along with it?"

Schism is viewed as the worst sin, but the authority of the bishop is not automatic, if he strays from the way.

 

[QuantaCura]

I understand when you say that revelation is given to the whole Church, but where there has been disputes, it has been the Council that has been the arbiter which has declared what is and what is not authentic revelation. But then this decision by the council of bishops must be ratified by the laity to be considered the correct decision.

Doesn't this make the laity the supreme authority in the Church (or at least an equal authority)?

To me, this doesn't seem to fit with the traditional understanding of the apostolic authority bestowed by Christ through the keys (which were not given to the laity). Does that impression make sense?

 

[Michael G]

I understand when you say that revelation is given to the whole Church, but where there has been disputes, it has been the Council that has been the arbiter which has declared what is and what is not authentic revelation. But then this decision by the council of bishops must be ratified by the laity to be considered the correct decision.

Doesn't this make the laity the supreme authority in the Church (or at least an equal authority)?

To me, this doesn't seem to fit with the traditional understanding of the apostolic authority bestowed by Christ through the keys (which were not given to the laity). Does that impression make sense?

If the keys were that binding, why did it take 2 councils (Hippo and Carthage) in the late 300s to formalize the canon of scripture when the Pope had declared the canon of scripture in the early 380s?

St. Ignatius of Antioch says "where the Bishop is, there is the catholic church." He did not say "where Rome is, there is the catholic church."

It is the Orthodox view that the traditional idea of Apostolic authority was passed on to all 12, and not just to one man (St. Peter).

 

[Xpycoctomos]

For the Orthdoox, the Church is a very organic body. Nothing happens magically where "voila" and it's all different. A coucil is not infallible in and of itself. A coucil can and has rejected Truth. The council is proven to hold right teaching through the life of the Church. You don't leave a council thinking "well, we just had an infallible council... wasn't that neat? we should do that more often". Rather, those that leave a council should pray that teh Lord reveal to truth or falseness of that council to the Church over time. It's just not a black and white situation. Actually, I really can't think of much in the Faith that is. It would be nice for our simple minds if everything worked like a well-oiled buearocratic machine but... it usually isn't like that. So a bunch of bishops and patriarchs got together and made decisions on the faith of the Church. Well, while that does deserve my attention and obedience, that does not (in and of itself) deserve the title "infallible". The Holy Spirit will show us the fruits.

Just because i have a good friend who is generally a very honest and well-intentioned person does not mean that all of his actions are automatically good. The fruits of those actions will speak for themselves.

John

 

[Theophorus]

I understand when you say that revelation is given to the whole Church, but where there has been disputes, it has been the Council that has been the arbiter which has declared what is and what is not authentic revelation. But then this decision by the council of bishops must be ratified by the laity to be considered the correct decision.

Doesn't this make the laity the supreme authority in the Church (or at least an equal authority)?

To me, this doesn't seem to fit with the traditional understanding of the apostolic authority bestowed by Christ through the keys (which were not given to the laity). Does that impression make sense?

But apostolic succession is not equated with dogmatic authority. It is certainly a very large part of it, but not the end all and be all. This is because no single bishop is infallible, and no one bishop or lay person can contain the fulness of Christ, which is contained by the Church as a whole.

The bishop was, and in most places, still is the liturgical leader of his flock above all else. I personally believe it is this focus, and the liturgical purity of the Orthodox Church, that has provided the theoligical unity and unity of praxis that is intrinsic to Orthodoxy.

The bishop and the sacraments are are the center of the church, but truth resides in all of the churches facets.

It is the sacraments that are above all else in the Orthodox mindset. It is the unifying factor, that would include liturgical dogma such as the Creed. After that it is praxis of the members, prayer and fasting. dogmatic theology is below these. Again, imo, dogmatic theology is an extension of the bishop/sacraments, liturgical practice, praxis of the faithful; in that order. The keys handed to the apostles would included first and foremost, the grace to minister to the faithful with the Eucharist, and Baptism, confession etc.

 

[Michael G]

For the Orthdoox, the Church is a very organic body. Nothing happens magically where "voila" and it's all different. A coucil is not infallible in and of itself. A coucil can and has rejected Truth. The council is proven to hold right teaching through the life of the Church. You don't leave a council thinking "well, we just had an infallible council... wasn't that neat? we should do that more often". Rather, those that leave a council should pray that teh Lord reveal to truth or falseness of that council to the Church over time. It's just not a black and white situation. Actually, I really can't think of much in the Faith that is. It would be nice for our simple minds if everything worked like a well-oiled buearocratic machine but... it usually isn't like that. So a bunch of bishops and patriarchs got together and made decisions on the faith of the Church. Well, while that does deserve my attention and obedience, that does not (in and of itself) deserve the title "infallible". The Holy Spirit will show us the fruits.

Just because i have a good friend who is generally a very honest and well-intentioned person does not mean that all of his actions are automatically good. The fruits of those actions will speak for themselves.

John

John is correct here. As a former priest of mine once put it, something is only seen as rock solid truth within the Orthodox Church after a few hundred years of belief and test. Orthodoxy is a living, breathing body. It takes time for heresies to be rooted out, for theological defenses against them to be formulated and proved to be correct. The bishops are our guides, and the representatives of the Apostles, but in the end only the Holy Spirit is infallible.

 

[QuantaCura]

If the keys were that binding, why did it take 2 councils (Hippo and Carthage) in the late 300s to formalize the canon of scripture when the Pope had declared the canon of scripture in the early 380s?

St. Ignatius of Antioch says "where the Bishop is, there is the catholic church." He did not say "where Rome is, there is the catholic church."

It is the Orthodox view that the traditional idea of Apostolic authority was passed on to all 12, and not just to one man (St. Peter).

Sorry if I wasn't clear, this thread is about ecumenical councils from an orthodox perspective--I wasn't talkinag about the papacy at all. I was speaking within the Orthodox framework: don't you guys believe the keys are given to all the bishops?

As for Hippo and Carthage, those were local councils, not ecumenical councils.

 

[QuantaCura]

OK, let's see if I got it:

So it seems that the prevailing view is the "infallibility of all believers." The Holy Spirit preserves the truth through the whole body. When disputes pop up, ecumenical councils are helpful in rooting it out, but they are just part of the bigger process of purification used by the Spirit throughout the whole Body.


I guess my question then becomes this:

Why is there dispute over which councils are considereed ecumenical? What defines a council as ecumenical? And why the need to distinguish it from other non-ecumenical councils?

 

[Theophorus]

OK, let's see if I got it:

So it seems that the prevailing view is the "infallibility of all believers." The Holy Spirit preserves the truth through the whole body. When disputes pop up, ecumenical councils are helpful in rooting it out, but they are just part of the bigger process of purification used by the Spirit throughout the whole Body.


I guess my question then becomes this:

Why is there dispute over which councils are considereed ecumenical? What defines a council as c? And why the need to distinguish it from other non-ecumenical councils?

A binding ecumenical council is one that is recognized by the Church.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

OK, let's see if I got it:

So it seems that the prevailing view is the "infallibility of all believers." The Holy Spirit preserves the truth through the whole body. When disputes pop up, ecumenical councils are helpful in rooting it out, but they are just part of the bigger process of purification used by the Spirit throughout the whole Body.

I'm really uncomfortable with this phrase "Infallibility of all believers". It sounds too individualistic and doesn't outrightly point to the Holy Spirit (although implicitly it would). I think you kind of have the idea. However, perhaps we are stressing one side at the expence of the other. It's not JUST a bunch of bishops getting together. Of course we believe that the Holy Spirit gives special guidance to these and many councils and surely in a very special way. But we are all fallible humans and just becuase we get together doesn't mean we will get it right the first time.

I guess my question then becomes this:

Why is there dispute over which councils are considereed ecumenical? What defines a council as ecumenical? And why the need to distinguish it from other non-ecumenical councils?

I think this is a good question. I don't know that there is a definitive reason to separate the 7 ECs from any others. Ecumenical is not wholly dependant on something so arbitrary as the number of bishops present. Surely that attracts more attention and make a council more worthy of honor... but an Ecumenical Council BECOMES ecumenical as it's precepts are taken on by the WHOLE Church. The 7 ECs became as such because over time they were shown to expond on and teach true Dogma in powerful way. Surely the Holy Spirit lead that Council with great might (I mean, you have to believe that if you look at some of the lesser noble reasons as to why the Emperor of Constantinople called some of these councils... he didn't care about truth as much as he cared about unity. Thankfully the Bishops who came did care about this, and the Holy Spirit was present with great might.

The Council is ecumenical because it bears good fruits... it doesn't bear good fruits because it's ecumenical. (A local council could become ecumenical if it expounded on something the Church Universal was in need of).

John